Yea, TWC u should of know u'd gets ur nuts in a sling saying that "dont i need a satellite dish with you guys" Thats totaly misleading. On one hand your trying to attack Fios, thus the fiber claims, then you drop the ball and get verisons tv offerings via a partnership with DirecTv in the non fios areas. A better move would of been to film this in a rual area, then you'd have a valid argument. But im guessing that faving a pig or a cow in the background just wasent pleasing to ur marketing eyes.
The other stuff about fiber they could probably get away with, because it's vague misrepresentation that would fly over a judge's head (unless he had a clear understanding of the difference between core and last mile infrastructure).
But the satellite dish quip is stupid. Verizon will probably win the case based on that alone. It's probably why the most common version of the ad seen omits that bit.
quote:Verizon will probably win the case based on that alone.
Then again, I'm not an attorney, and my wrong guess is why they get paid so much more than I.
A real attorney e-mails me to note:
quote:Burden is very heavy on false advertising claimants. They need to prove not only that the claim was false but then have to provide survey data [an expensive proposition] showing that consumers were actually confused and that it affected their buying decisions. I would say that it is unlikely that this is a serious lawsuit and more a public relations gambit. Unless the advertising is clearly false and highly damaging to Verizon's business such that it would not be able to obtain satisfactory money damages the prospects of a preliminary injunction or TRO are unlikely.