Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00760
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Plaintiff AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) files this Complaint against Defendant T-
`
`Mobile USA Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and states as follows:
`
`SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`Competition in the telecommunications industry is fierce, particularly among
`
`companies that offer wireless service plans to keep us connected to the Internet and each
`
`other.
`
`2. Wireless companies like AT&T and T-Mobile compete for wireless customers
`
`from a base of consumers that rightfully demands high-quality service at low prices. As a
`
`result, wireless carriers invest aggressively in their networks while offering an array of
`
`service plans, promotions, and discounts designed to appeal to a wide variety of consumers.
`
`They also advertise their services, often comparing their products and prices with those of
`
`their competitors.
`
`3.
`
`Competition on the merits benefits consumers, and since the dawn of the
`
`wireless age, AT&T has successfully built a base of wireless customers that now numbers
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00760
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Plaintiff AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) files this Complaint against Defendant T-
`
`Mobile USA Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and states as follows:
`
`SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`Competition in the telecommunications industry is fierce, particularly among
`
`companies that offer wireless service plans to keep us connected to the Internet and each
`
`other.
`
`2. Wireless companies like AT&T and T-Mobile compete for wireless customers
`
`from a base of consumers that rightfully demands high-quality service at low prices. As a
`
`result, wireless carriers invest aggressively in their networks while offering an array of
`
`service plans, promotions, and discounts designed to appeal to a wide variety of consumers.
`
`They also advertise their services, often comparing their products and prices with those of
`
`their competitors.
`
`3.
`
`Competition on the merits benefits consumers, and since the dawn of the
`
`wireless age, AT&T has successfully built a base of wireless customers that now numbers
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`over 200 million wireless connections. But what wireless carriers cannot do is lie to
`
`consumers about a competitor’s services. False statements that deceive the public to the
`
`detriment of a competitor violate federal law.
`
`4.
`
`Unfortunately, that is exactly what T-Mobile is doing in a new advertising
`
`campaign that is intentionally designed to deceive senior citizens.
`
`5.
`
`T-Mobile’s new advertising campaign can be found at T-Mobile’s new
`
`website, “BannedSeniors.com,” where T-Mobile claims:
`
`6.
`
`The website’s headline boldly proclaims, without any factual support, that
`
`
`
`AT&T bans senior discounts.
`
`7.
`
`T-Mobile further claims that “92% of seniors in the U.S. can’t get a wireless
`
`discount” from AT&T because they “don’t live in Florida,” and that the only ways for
`
`customers aged 55 or older to get a discounted wireless plan are to (1) move to Florida, (2)
`
`obtain a Florida address, or (3) switch to T-Mobile.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Each one of these claims is literally false.
`
`AT&T does not “ban” senior discounts in any way, shape, or form.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`10.
`
`To the contrary, AT&T offers discounts to senior citizens on their wireless
`
`service. For example, through AARP, AT&T offers millions of seniors across every state
`
`discounts on monthly service charges and activation fees.
`
`11.
`
`T-Mobile’s false statements about AT&T’s services are designed to deceive
`
`senior citizens. Notwithstanding T-Mobile’s false statements otherwise, AT&T offers
`
`discounts to senior citizens in all states. They do not have to live in Florida. They do not
`
`have to move to Florida. And they do not have to switch to T-Mobile in order to obtain
`
`discounts.
`
`12.
`
` AT&T files this action for damages and injunctive relief to stop T-Mobile’s
`
`false advertising.
`
`PARTIES
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff AT&T Mobility LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`14. Defendant T-Mobile USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Bellevue, Washington. T-Mobile is registered to do business in the State
`
`of Texas and can be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
`
`Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 because this case arises under the laws of the United States—specifically, the
`
`Lanham Act.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`16.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile because it is registered to
`
`do business in the State of Texas and does business in the State of Texas.
`
`17. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to AT&T’s claims occurred in this
`
`district. T-Mobile’s nationwide marketing and advertising—including the false and
`
`misleading advertisements that are the subject of AT&T’s claims—are intended to reach
`
`and likely have reached consumers in this district. Additionally, according to its website, T-
`
`Mobile operates numerous stores at various locations throughout this district, which stand
`
`to gain—or are gaining—from T-Mobile’s unlawful conduct.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`18. AT&T and T-Mobile are competitors in the wireless communication
`
`industry.
`
`19. On August 30, 2022, T-Mobile issued a press release launching its new
`
`advertising campaign directed at senior citizens that disparages AT&T through false
`
`advertising.
`
`20.
`
`To entice senior citizens to switch to T-Mobile, T-Mobile created the website
`
`“BannedSeniors.com.” On this website, T-Mobile claims that “Verizon and AT&T Ban
`
`Senior Discounts” and that “92% of seniors in the U.S. can’t get a wireless discount from
`
`Verizon or AT&T because they don’t live in Florida.”
`
`21.
`
`These claims are literally false. AT&T has not “banned” seniors from getting
`
`discounted wireless service outside the state of Florida. To the contrary, AT&T offers
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`discount programs that are available in every state to customers over the age of 55. For
`
`instance, AT&T offers and markets a discount program in partnership with the AARP:
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The AARP is an interest and advocacy group serving the 50+ population.
`
`With nearly 38 million members, it is “by far the nation’s largest nonprofit, nonpartisan
`
`organization dedicated to empowering people 50 and older to choose how they live as they
`
`age.”1 Multiple websites compiling wireless discount options for senior citizens list AT&T’s
`
`AARP discount program.2 The Forbes Health article “Best Senior Cell Phone Plans of
`
`2022” includes “AT&T Senior Cell Phone Plans” and lists AT&T’s AARP discount
`
`program.3
`
`
` AARP 2020 Annual Report, available at https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/about_aarp/
`1
`annual_reports/2021/2020-aarp-annual-report.pdf.
`2 See, e.g., “AT&T Senior Discounts,” TheSeniorList, available at https://www.theseniorlist.com/senior-
`discounts/cell-phone/att/; “AT&T Cell Phone Plans for Seniors 2022,” Senior Living, available at
`https://www.seniorliving.org/cell-phone/att/.
`3 “Best Senior Cell Phone Plans of 2022: Coverage, Cost and Features,” Forbes Health, available at
`https://www.forbes.com/health/healthy-aging/best-cell-phone-plans-for-seniors/.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`23. AT&T’s AARP discount program is available to AT&T customers
`
`nationwide. T-Mobile’s claims that AT&T has “banned” senior discounts outside of
`
`Florida and does not offer discounts to 92% of seniors are false.
`
`24.
`
`T-Mobile’s “BannedSeniors.com” website also contains graphics making
`
`additional false claims. In one graphic, T-Mobile claims that consumers can “get around”
`
`“AT&T’s ludicrous practices” with “three ways to get a 55+ discount”:
`
`
`
`This graphic falsely conveys that these are the only three ways for customers over 55 to get
`
`discounted wireless service with AT&T. In actuality, AARP’s millions of members can
`
`receive discounted wireless service from AT&T without switching to T-Mobile, moving to
`
`Florida, or getting a virtual mailbox in Florida.
`
`25.
`
`T-Mobile’s “BannedSeniors.com” website also displays a graphic of
`
`comparative maps conveying the false message that Florida is the only state in which AT&T
`
`customers over 55 can receive discounted wireless service:
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`Contrary to this false claim, customers over 55 can receive discounted wireless service from
`
`AT&T in all 50 states through AT&T’s AARP discount program.
`
`26.
`
`T-Mobile’s false and misleading ad campaign has caused and continues to
`
`cause harm to AT&T and consumers. The “BannedSeniors.com” website is available on
`
`the internet to consumers nationwide. T-Mobile’s false claims are designed to cause and are
`
`likely to cause consumers over the age of 55 to choose wireless service with T-Mobile
`
`instead of AT&T or another carrier. Because T-Mobile’s false and misleading claims are
`
`causing irreparable harm to AT&T, AT&T seeks damages and injunctive relief to stop T-
`
`Mobile’s ongoing false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
`
`27. AT&T incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`28.
`
`T-Mobile has made false and misleading descriptions and representations of
`
`fact in its commercial advertising and promotion concerning the nature, characteristics, and
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`qualities of its and AT&T’s goods, services, and commercial activities in violation of Section
`
`43(a) of the Lanham Act.
`
`29.
`
`T-Mobile’s false and misleading descriptions and representations of fact have
`
`deceived and are likely to deceive consumers into, among other things, purchasing services
`
`from T-Mobile instead of AT&T, unfairly and unlawfully shifting income and profit from
`
`AT&T to T-Mobile.
`
`30.
`
`T-Mobile’s false and misleading statements about its own and AT&T’s
`
`goods, services, and commercial activities have damaged AT&T’s goodwill and reputation
`
`and are likely to impact AT&T’s sales.
`
`31. AT&T has been and will likely continue to be damaged by T-Mobile’s false
`
`and misleading representations in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`32.
`
`By reason of the foregoing acts, T-Mobile has caused and, unless restrained
`
`and enjoined, will continue to cause irreparable harm to AT&T. Additionally, AT&T has
`
`no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, AT&T is entitled to preliminary
`
`and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting T-Mobile’s ongoing false and misleading
`
`advertising.4
`
`33.
`
`T-Mobile’s conduct is willful, deliberate, intentional, and in bad faith.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, AT&T is entitled to recover (a) T-Mobile’s
`
`profits attributable to its false advertising, (b) the damages caused to AT&T by T-Mobile’s
`
`false advertising, and (c) the costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
`
`
`4 Pursuant to Local Rule 65, AT&T is separately filing its Application for Preliminary Injunction.
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-00760-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`34. AT&T demands a jury trial on all claims in this Complaint on which a jury
`
`trial is available.
`
`PRAYER
`
`AT&T respectfully requests that the Court:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`award AT&T its actual compensatory damages;
`
`order T-Mobile to disgorge all profits earned through its false advertising;
`
`issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining T-Mobile’s
`ongoing false advertising campaign;
`
`iv. award to AT&T its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
`
`v.
`
`grant to AT&T such further relief to which it is entitled.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Pete Marketos
`Pete Marketos
` State Bar No. 24013101
` pete.marketos@rm-firm.com
`Tyler J. Bexley
` State Bar No. 24073923
` tyler.bexley@rm-firm.com
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REESE MARKETOS LLP
`750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600
`Dallas, Texas 75201-3202
`214.382.9810 telephone
`214.501.0731 facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
