VoIP-
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (April 2025)
Editorial by Bud Wayne
Second Amended Complaints Allege $62.84 Billion for VoIP-
Potentially the Most Comprehensive RICO and Antitrust Case Ever Filed Against U.S. Telecom Carriers
VoIP-
These claims arise from an alleged nationwide scheme by AT&T, Verizon, and T-
Under RICO, courts may award mandatory treble damages in cases involving predicate acts such as wire and mail fraud, deceptive service representations, and enterprise-
Both cases are being submitted as second amended complaints, subject to court approval. More importantly, they are complementary in structure, assert parallel legal violations.
On April 23, 2025, VoIP-
Two Cases, One Alleged Unified Fraud
The VoIP-
Forced Tying of Wi-
False Advertising of Wi-
Each complaint asserts 14 legal counts grounded in five federal frameworks: the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, RICO, the Telecommunications Act, and the Restatement of Restitution.
Recent Federal Rulings Support the Legal Structure
Judge Amit Mehta
U.S. v. Google LLC, 1:20-
"Suppressing alternative distribution paths to preserve market dominance—even absent direct pricing manipulation—constitutes a violation of the Sherman Act... Exclusionary maintenance of power is exactly what antitrust laws aim to prevent."
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema
U.S. v. Google LLC, 1:23-
"Tying of unrelated products, absent justification, is unlawful under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Suppressing competition through bundling and deception is not just anticompetitive—it is illegal."
These rulings directly affirm the legal structure asserted in both of VoIP-
The Most Legally Comprehensive Fraud and Market Exclusion Case Ever Filed Against U.S. Carriers.
Condensed Legal Framework: 14 Counts, 11 Violations, 5 Federal Pillars
Grouped by statute, the complaints allege:
Sherman Act: Monopolization/attempted monopolization (§ 2), unlawful tying (§ 1)
Clayton Act: Bundling (§ 3), price discrimination (§ 2), tacit collusion (§ 7)
RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Wire/mail fraud (§ 1962(c)), conspiracy (§ 1962(d)), reinvestment of proceeds (§ 1962(a)), enterprise control (§ 1962(b))
Telecommunications Act: Refusal to unbundle network access (§ 251(c)(3))
Restatement of Restitution: Unjust enrichment and equitable lien (§§ 45, 56, 58)
— Class Action Complaint
Despite the service of both the VoIP-
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), this exposes not only the companies, but also their directors, general counsel, and executives to personal liability for continued conspiracy and cover-
We call on the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and all consumer protection agencies to intervene in what is now the most structurally significant antitrust and RICO case of the digital age—where the rule of law itself is being tested against three telecom giants who believe they are above it.
Q&A: Bud Wayne Interviews Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-
Q: You've spent nearly a decade in patent litigation—why pivot now to antitrust, RICO, and telecommunications law?
Malak:
Because the conduct we're challenging goes far beyond patents—it strikes at the heart of how 373 million Americans are billed, manipulated, and denied choice. Our complaints are rooted not in intellectual property law, but in the federal antitrust statutes, the Telecommunications Act, and the RICO framework, because this is a case about systemic fraud, market exclusion, and the forced monetization of tied services at national scale.
As CEO, my responsibility is to pursue the legal path with the highest chance of success and the greatest potential to hold these carriers accountable—not just for what they've done to VoIP-
Q: Some may say Emil Malak is overly litigious. What's your response?
Malak:
If defending our technology and enforcing our rights makes us litigious, so be it. We created the backbone of Wi-
Maybe it's time we stand up to these Goliaths. We won't pretend to be anything more than a small ant—but even the smallest force can expose the biggest injustice. These companies are profiting off the backs of 373 million American subscribers, including millions of economically vulnerable families who are being denied fair, affordable choices.
This is no longer just about profit margins—it's about systemic abuse, suppressed competition, and the erosion of consumer trust. So we ask:
Where is the integrity? Where is the credibility in deceiving the very people who fund your networks?
At some point, the law must draw a line. And we believe that time is now
This isn't about winning or losing in court.
It's about doing what's right.
Q: You're accusing the world's largest telecom companies of fraud, collusion, and racketeering. Can you explain that simply?
Malak:
Imagine this: you're making a Wi-
Worse, when you look at your invoice, you'll often see "Wi-
This is what's known as forced tying—and it's built into the billing structure. The average American is paying $40 to $50 per month per person, and up to $180 or more for a family of four, just to access basic calling and texting that could run entirely on Wi-
But the carriers don't offer that choice. They refuse to unbundle the service, because offloading calls onto Wi-
If you're outside of Wi-
Q: If you're proven right, this could be one of the biggest telecom frauds in U.S. history. What supports your claim?
Malak:
Follow the money—and the structure. AT&T, Verizon, and T-
Between 2018 and 2024, we calculate that the carriers have saved nearly $209.47 billion by offloading voice traffic onto subscriber-
We've backed every allegation with a conservative damages model, and a framework grounded in RICO, antitrust, and telecom law.
Q: What's your end goal?
Malak:
We want fair licensing terms, fair competition, and consumer transparency. We're not here to destroy anyone—we're here to protect the integrity of innovation. Wi-
This makes the issue even more urgent—not just for consumers, but for the carriers themselves. They must wake up, innovate beyond the outdated bundle model, and adapt to the new reality. If they don't, they risk the erosion of more than 75% of their current voice-
If the defendants want to work toward a settlement, we're ready. But until then, we will defend what's rightfully ours—and stand up for the millions of Americans being denied a fair, affordable choice.
Q: Could this affect investors?
Malak:
That's not for me to decide. Investors will make their own assessments. We're focused on facts, law, and what's just. Our obligation is to protect our shareholders, the integrity of the markets, and the millions of consumers misled by this system.
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.