Skip to content

Court blocks T-Mobile's 'misleading' savings ad after Verizon lawsuit

A bold T-Mobile ad backfired—now a court says its savings claims were deceptive. Verizon's legal win exposes the risks of aggressive price comparisons.

The image shows a poster with text and a logo that reads "Over 15 million households enrolled to...
The image shows a poster with text and a logo that reads "Over 15 million households enrolled to save on high-speed internet through the Affordable Connectivity Program". The poster is likely promoting the program, which is designed to provide access to a wide range of internet services, such as Wi-Fi, internet access, and internet access. The text on the poster likely provides more information about the program and its benefits.

Court blocks T-Mobile's 'misleading' savings ad after Verizon lawsuit

A US court has ruled against T-Mobile in a dispute over one of its advertisements. Verizon secured a preliminary injunction to block the rival carrier from airing the controversial promo. The decision centres on claims that T-Mobile's savings promises mislead consumers.

The case revolves around a T-Mobile ad stating customers could save over $1,000 yearly by switching from Verizon's Unlimited Ultimate Plan to T-Mobile's Better Value Plan. Judge Lewis Kaplan determined the claim amounted to false advertising. He criticised the comparison as unfair, noting T-Mobile contrasted Verizon's standard pricing with its own temporary promotional rate.

The ruling also questioned T-Mobile's five-year price guarantee. Judge Kaplan argued the promised savings might not even last a single year. As a result, the injunction prevents T-Mobile from running the advertisement until further legal proceedings conclude. No public statements from competition authorities regarding similar cases have been documented in recent years. The decision stands as an isolated ruling in this instance.

The injunction remains in effect for now, halting T-Mobile's ad campaign. Verizon's legal challenge has succeeded in blocking the disputed claims about cost savings. Further hearings will determine whether the ban becomes permanent.

Read also:

Latest