Class Action and Antitrust Lawsuits Filed Against Major Telcos Transforming Telecommunications for 373 Million Subscribers
Editorial by Bud Wayne:
I have read the attached Class Action and Antitrust lawsuits and done my own reach. Below is my editorial regarding the two complaints.
Untying Could Slash Costs and Tackle Inflation for Millions of Americans
Imagine this: a reduction of $60 to $80 per month in phone bills for the average working individual. Now picture a family of four, currently forced to pay $200 monthly for a tied package, finally seeing that bill slashed to just $20. These aren't minor savings—this is life-changing relief for working families struggling to make ends meet. Yet, telecom giants are denying Americans this choice, holding them hostage to inflated, illegally tied services.
Who's listening? Certainly not the tone-deaf directors of these carriers, who put profits over consumer welfare. Instead of facing the issue head-on, they deploy armies of lawyers to file wave after wave of delay motions, attempting to drag out litigation for years and profit off the backs of consumers in the meantime. It's a calculated strategy to hold onto their monopoly at all costs—a clear abuse of the legal system to block much-needed reform.
Our elected leaders, regardless of party, need to step up and stand with VoIP-Pal in this fight for consumer rights. This battle isn't just about the carriers—Apple, Google, Samsung, and other tech giants are part of the same team, complicit in this scheme. A $6.50 unlimited Wi-Fi calling plan would disrupt their cozy, profitable arrangements, threatening a smart phone model that relies on subsidized plans to maintain sky-high prices. VoIP-Pal's success would force a much-needed reset, breaking Silicon Valley and telecom's stranglehold on mobile pricing and delivering real choice to 373 million American subscribers.
We need everyone's support. Join us in demanding untying options, fair pricing, and an end to corporate exploitation. Share, raise awareness, and let's show that the American public won't stand for corporate monopolies bleeding us dry. It's time to hold these companies accountable and give consumers the freedom they deserve.
Class Action and Antitrust Lawsuits Filed Against Major Telcos Now Reaches a Historical $346.86 Billion
The two complaints emphasizes the robustness of the two fundamental points in the antitrust pleadings for both VoIP-Pal and the class action
Defendants' Unlawful Tying Practices: A Shared Antitrust Violation in VoIP-Pal and Class Action Cases
Defendants' Lack of Antitrust Defense in Tying Practices
The central issue in this case is the defendants' refusal to untie cellular calling and texting services from Wi-Fi calling, a practice that violates multiple antitrust laws and leaves them with no viable defense. Their primary argument—that untying would undermine their profitability and infrastructure sustainability—is insufficient to justify their anti-competitive conduct.
1. Violations of Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 251 mandates that telecommunications carriers interconnect with competitors and refrain from practices that impede competition. By tying Wi-Fi calling with cellular services, the defendants restrict consumer choice and hinder competitors like VoIP-Pal from offering standalone Wi-Fi calling services, thereby violating this provision.
2. Five Antitrust Breaches
Sherman Act, Section 1: Restraint of Trade
The defendants' tying practices constitute an unlawful restraint of trade by limiting consumer options and stifling competition.
Sherman Act, Section 2: Monopolization
By leveraging their market dominance to enforce tying, the defendants engage in monopolistic behavior that suppresses competitors.
Clayton Act, Section 2: Price Discrimination
The deceptive practice of advertising Voice over Wi-Fi (VoWiFi) as "free" while embedding its costs in higher cellular service charges constitutes price discrimination, disadvantaging competitors offering standalone services.
Clayton Act, Section 3: Exclusive Dealing
Forcing consumers into tied service agreements prevents them from choosing alternative providers, amounting to exclusive dealing that lessens competition.
Clayton Act, Section 7: Anticompetitive Mergers
Acquisitions of Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) by the defendants further entrench their monopoly, reducing market competition.
3. Constitutional Breaches and Their Antitrust Implications
Multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) Challenges: Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights
The defendants have filed numerous IPR challenges against VoIP-Pal's patents to exhaust its resources, violating due process rights and facilitating monopolistic practices by eliminating competition through repeated legal challenges.
Post-Grant Reexamination: Violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process and Res Judicata
Initiating post-grant reexaminations after judicial rulings have upheld patent validity subjects VoIP-Pal to endless legal battles, violating due process and res judicata principles. This strategy maintains market dominance by preventing competitors from establishing a foothold.
Conclusion: Defendants' Indefensible Position on Antitrust Violations
Both VoIP-Pal and the class action plaintiffs contend that the defendants' practice of tying Wi-Fi calling with cellular services constitutes significant antitrust violations. This tying restricts consumer choice and impedes competition, contravening Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Additionally, it breaches Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by restraining trade and promoting monopolization, as well as Sections 2, 3, and 7 of the Clayton Act through price discrimination, exclusive dealing, and anticompetitive mergers. The defendants' primary defense—that untying would threaten profitability and infrastructure sustainability—is insufficient to justify their anticompetitive conduct.
Beyond these shared antitrust allegations, VoIP-Pal asserts that the defendants have infringed upon its proprietary Wi-Fi calling routing and classification technologies, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815; 9,179,005; and 10,218,606. This unauthorized use not only violates VoIP-Pal's intellectual property rights but also exacerbates the antitrust breaches by leveraging these technologies to maintain market dominance. Consequently, VoIP-Pal's claims encompass both the antitrust violations and the infringement of its proprietary technologies, underscoring the defendants' multifaceted unlawful conduct.
In summary, the defendants' arguments fail to provide a viable defense against the alleged antitrust violations. Both the class action and VoIP-Pal's claims highlight the need for rectifying these anticompetitive practices to restore fair competition and protect consumer rights in the telecommunications industry.
Q&A with CEO Emil Malak: Transforming Telecommunications for 373 Million Subscribers
Q: What impact would a favorable court decision have?
A: A favorable ruling could significantly alter the financial landscape for approximately 373 million American subscribers. Many individuals, especially those in vulnerable situations, have been compelled to purchase tied services they cannot afford. Imagine a scenario where a family of four pays only $20 combined for unlimited Wi-Fi calling.
Q: How does this affect the carriers' business model?
A: This serves as a wake-up call to carriers. Their current business model not only is outdated but also breaches antitrust laws. Wi-Fi calling represents the future of telecommunications. Carriers must adapt and improve their models or risk losing a substantial portion of their market share to emerging competitors.
Q: What role will VoIP-Pal play in the future of Wi-Fi calling?
A: VoIP-Pal is actively developing the next phase of Wi-Fi calling technology, which we believe will be transformative for the industry. Our technology could become the carriers' best ally in adapting to the evolving telecommunications landscape.
Q: You've taken on industry giants like Apple, Google, Facebook, Samsung, Amazon, Twitter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Huawei. Are you concerned about potential repercussions?
A: Naturally, facing such formidable opponents is daunting. However, conceding due to their vast legal resources isn't an option. Our complaints present significant challenges for these companies and their directors, who could face serious legal consequences. I hope their leadership will recognize this and consider a resolution.
Link to filed court VoIP-pal and Class Action Antirust
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/666c5eb4f4c8e856d816316d/6720e45b79940fb3a84bfa2c_Antitrust%20FILED%20Oct%2025.pdf
Link to Class Action
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/666c5eb4f4c8e856d816316d/6720e476a87108440071d542_Class%20Action%20FILED%20Oct%2025.pdf
Link to Motion to Consolidate
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/666c5eb4f4c8e856d816316d/67238ceba35b172f3fb1c673_Motion%20to%20Consolidate%20FILED%2010.30.24.pdf
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.
