Verizon to AT&T: "The Truth Hurts (Bitch!)"

Illustration for article titled Verizon to AT&T: "The Truth Hurts (Bitch!)"

Okay, so I may have added "bitch" for emphasis—but this AT&T vs. Verizon lawsuit over the "Map for That" ads is turning into an all-out PR smackdown. This stuff isn't even written in proper legal language anymore.


When your lawsuits sound like press releases, it's because they probably are (not that we care, the whole case is pretty entertaining). Check out this opening statement from Verizon:

AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon's "There's A Map For That" advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon's ads are true and the truth hurts.

YA BURNT, AT&T! Verizon goes on to accuse AT&T of failing to adequately expand its 3G coverage to match demand for its smartphones, which is sort of a hard point for AT&T to argue. Verizon claims that its advertisements are "literally true" (instead of philosophically true? Metaphorically true? True in the sense in which it is used in animal husbandry, as in purebred? What?) and not misleading, and that AT&T has failed to provide customers with an accurate map of its coverage. It's pretty great, really—if you've ever wished the American legal system was more like it is on Law and Order, this whole statement is a gift. [Engadget]



The powers at be at AT&T sat on their laurels (and our piles of cash) when we all gobbled up the iPhones with their mandatory data plans, and even paid $10 more PLUS separate messaging plans per month when the 3G came out, screwed their own employees over by making sure that - even as an exclusive wireless carrier, mind you - they had less than 5% available stock compared to their local Apple store counterpart, just so they didn't have to pay out commissions, and now they have the audacity to bitch when someone clearly shows them up? #verizonatt