Verizon Lashes Back At AT&T Over LawsuitVerizon Lashes Back At AT&T Over Lawsuit

On Monday, Verizon Wireless officially responded to lawsuits filed against it by AT&T. Verizon calls AT&T's lawsuits "meritless," points out that the ads are factually accurate and that "the truth hurts."Verizon hits back, and hard, with clear-cut language that undermines the core arguments being made by AT&T.

This legal battle between Verizon Wireless and AT&T is about as ugly as it gets when it comes to corporate mudslinging. The two largest network operators in the U.S. are in a pitched battle for supremacy of the market. Verizon Wireless currently has the lead in sheer numbers, but AT&T is a strong second.

The heart of the matter is an ad campaign that Verizon has been running of late that aims squarely at AT&T's 3G network, which AT&T routinely cites in its own ads as "the nation's fastest 3G network." Verizon has compared its' own 3G coverage directly against AT&T's. Verizon clearly has a larger 3G footprint and claims that it offers "5X more 3G coverage than AT&T." AT&T says the ads are misleading and might cause some to think that AT&T provides no coverage at all where it doesn't provide 3G coverage.

Verizon makes some good arguments in its filing. Here are some highlights:

"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."

"AT&T admits that the 3G coverage maps - the one thing that is common to all five ads - are accurate and that the ads' express statement that Verizon has '5X More 3G Coverage' than AT&T is true."

"AT&T alternatively argues that, although the ads expressly and consistently convey truthful information about 3G service, they imply the misleading impression that AT&T has no coverage whatsoever outside of the 3G area. This claim cannot be accepted without convincing evidence that consumers are actually misled."

"As to four of the five challenged ads, AT&T has presented no evidence of consumer deception."

"In the final analysis, AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon's side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage which AT&T's confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger."

Keep in mind, those quotes all come from the opening statement of Verizon's legal filing. They are followed by pages and pages of legalese that backs up much of what Verizon claims.

After a brief look, it is hard to see where AT&T has a leg to stand on, but I am no lawyer.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is not the end of the "Ad Wars," which will likely continue well into the holiday season.