There were some cool ads thrown by Verizon on AT&T insulting it off, on it’s coverage limits, and especially the “There’s a Map For that” ads which made AT&T blow it’s temper so much to file a lawsuit against Verizon.
It wanted Verizon to remove those ads as they were misleading to customers and created a wrong impression of the network in public. There wars always go on, and it’s funny to see what different ways they come up to sue each other.
Here’s Verizon’s answer to AT&T’s lawsuit,
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 now is attempting to silence Verizon’s ads that include maps graphically depicting the geographic reach of AT&T’s 3G network as compared to Verizon’s own 3G network because AT&T does not like the truthful picture painted by that comparison
So they say reality? I am damn sure, the court judge would be thinking his brains out to rule out the decision in favour of any one party!
You have to pay 50 USDs even if the product is devfctiee? Really? Talk to a person at your local Verizon store and ask if you can just get a free replacement of the same phone, because you really shouldn’t have to pay if the phone isn’t working. But if it turns out that you do have to pay, devfctiee or not, I would get a new phone now, because who wants to have to deal with a crappy phone for 7 months?