T-Mobile's Motion to Dismiss Is Denied in AT&T False-Ad Complaint
U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas signed an order Friday (docket 4:22-cv-00760) denying defendant T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss AT&T's application for preliminary injunction in a case over alleged false advertising (see 2211020003).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
T-Mobile’s arguments that litigating the case in Texas would impose an “unfair burden” on the company and that Texas has no interest in the litigation are “unpersuasive,” Mazzant wrote, saying T-Mobile failed to identify specific burdens, other than “inconvenience on any party to litigation,” of having to travel to Texas for trial. A T-Mobile corporate office in Texas makes litigation in the state not “particularly burdensome,” said the opinion and order filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Sherman.
Mazzant noted Texas has a “strong interest in protecting in-state consumers from false advertising,” citing a 2008 case on trademark infringement, unfair competition and libel. T-Mobile “has not made a compelling case” that the court’s assertion of jurisdiction is unreasonable, he said. “It does not go against the interests of fair play and substantial justice to allow Texas, a state with which T-Mobile has sufficient minimum contacts, to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile on AT&T’s false advertising claim.”
In the Sept. 6 complaint, AT&T alleged T-Mobile violated the Lanham Act by falsely saying on its website that AT&T bans 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.” AT&T filed an application for preliminary injunction on the same day it filed the original complaint.
T-Mobile filed a motion to dismiss Sept. 16 for lack of personal jurisdiction. AT&T responded that specific jurisdiction is proper when a plaintiff alleges a cause of action that grows out of, or relates to, a contact between the defendant and the forum state.
AT&T asserted T-Mobile used its “extensive physical ties” to Texas, which include hundreds of retail stores and a corporate office, to sign up Texans influenced by its website’s advertisements.