AT&T sees red over Verizon's "There's a map for that" ads

There's no denying the brilliance of Verizon's latest ad campaign, which shows a happy Verizon Wireless customer surfing away on her smartphone with a U.S. 3G coverage map—bathed in bright red—floating over her head, while a sullen AT&T user sulks at her patchy blue 3G map. It's an effective commercial, all right, but is it deceptive?

That's what AT&T is arguing in a just-filed lawsuit, which accuses Verizon of trying to dupe viewers into thinking that AT&T has no coverage at all in the white areas of its 3G coverage map.

As reported by Reuters, AT&T argues that subscribers can "fully use their wireless devices outside of a 3G coverage area and undisputedly have coverage in areas depicted by white or blank space on the maps used in Verizon's advertisements."

For its part, Verizon Wireless has dismissed the claims, with a spokesperson telling Reuters that the "There's a map for that" ads (a clever play on the "There's an app for that" ads for the iPhone) "clearly state" that you can still make calls and receive data outside the 3G coverage areas shown on the floaty maps.

So, what are we talking about here? There are a few different versions of the ads in question on TV, but the one I'm most familiar with shows a smiling woman walking down the street, contentedly tapping on her smartphone while a voiceover says, "If you want to know why your 3G coverage works so great on Verizon Wireless, there's a map for that." Cue the floating map, painted almost entirely in red with a "Verizon Wireless 3G Coverage" caption underneath.

A few scenes later, we find another woman sitting on a bench, tapping her phone in frustration. The voiceover: "And if you want to know why your friend's 3G coverage keeps her out of touch? There's a map for that, too." The "AT&T 3G coverage" map pops up, and it looks pretty sad in comparison, with some blue blotches on the coasts but big swaths of white in the middle. Ouch.

No doubt, a pretty effective ad (well, it was the first 500 times I saw it), and nothing in it that's false as far as I can see. (In fact, as an iPhone user myself who's used to seeing the "3G" icon flicker and disappear, it rings true.) But is it misleading, as AT&T claims in its lawsuit?

As Engadget points out, AT&T has a "huge" 2G network that allows for both voice and data calls (albeit data at dial-up speeds), and indeed, Verizon already tweaked the original ad, ditching the "out of touch" remark and adding a "Voice and data services available outside of 3G areas" disclaimer after some nagging by AT&T.

But even with those changes, AT&T apparently thinks that those two maps—the big bright red one, and the blotchy blue one—will "mislead" viewers into thinking that AT&T phones are practically useless in the Midwest, and it wants a preliminary injunction against the ads, pronto.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the ads—I think they're funny, effective, and all the proper disclaimers are there. But what do you think? Are the commercials misleading? Were you confused by the distinction between 3G and 2G networks? And finally, does AT&T have a case, or should the lawsuit be laughed out of court?

Related:
AT&T sues Verizon Wireless over 3G ads [Reuters]