Previous Articles:
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust110224.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust121824.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust042325.html
Editor's Note: The following article summarizes allegations included in a federal complaint filed by VoIP-Pal.com Inc. The claims described are part of active litigation and have not yet been adjudicated in court.
The Hidden Enterprise Beneath Your Phone Bill: VoIP-Pal's Antitrust Fight Against Big Tech and Telecom
VoIP-Pal Antitrust Lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-03051-RDM)
VoIP-Pal Class Action Lawsuit (Case No. 1:24-cv-03051-RDM)
Today VoIP-Pal Antitrust Lawsuit (Case 1:25-cv-01843 Document 1 Filed 06/11/25 Page 1 of 144)
Civil Coversheet | Appendix A | Appendix B | Notice of Related Case
By Bud Wayne, June 2025
Editorial Disclaimer
The allegations described in this article are based on publicly filed federal complaints and do not reflect findings or conclusions by the Court. This editorial is published for informational purposes only and does not allege, imply, or assert independent wrongdoing by any named defendant. VoIP-Pal's claims remain unproven and are currently the subject of ongoing litigation.
VoIP-Pal's Lawsuit Challenges the Power Structure of Silicon Valley Gatekeepers and the Big Three Telecom Giants
If VoIP-Pal's antitrust and RICO complaints succeed, the telecommunications landscape could undergo a seismic shift. America's three largest mobile carriers—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile—would no longer maintain privileged access to mobile voice identity, phone number provisioning, and deep platform integration. Instead, they would be reduced to commodity providers of basic connectivity—just one option among many.
Device manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and Google (Pixel) could face an open market where $1,100 smartphones—no longer propped up by carrier subsidies—must compete at real-world prices closer to $200. And the true gatekeepers—Google's Android OS and Apple's iOS—would be legally required to offer equal integration privileges to all lawful VoIP competitors—not just those pre-certified by carrier partnerships.
The ultimate winner? 373 million U.S. mobile users, who would finally gain access to standalone Wi-Fi Calling for as little as $6.50/month—without a SIM card, without a bundled plan, and without being forced to rely on a carrier.
The stakes are enormous. The six named parties—Google, Apple, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile—currently share an estimated $565 billion in combined gross profit annually, built on a model of tiered access, technical favoritism, and privilege-based market control. If true competition is restored, that figure could drop to a fraction—perhaps closer to $65 billion—as lawful VoIP providers are finally given equal footing.
Consider the implications if messaging platforms like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger were granted real phone numbers and native OS integration, just like carriers receive today. They wouldn't just be apps—they'd be alternative voice providers with full feature parity.
This case doesn't ask the Court to dismantle the system. It asks the Court to level the playing field. And when that happens, innovation follows.
The $565 Billion Secret Behind Your Phone Bill: What VoIP-Pal Just Exposed
For years, a quiet but powerful system has operated beneath the surface of your mobile phone service—one that generates an estimated $565 billion in gross profit every year for just six companies: Apple, Google, Samsung, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
It was only a matter of time before someone connected the dots.
Now, VoIP-Pal, a pioneer of Wi-Fi-based voice calling technology since the early 2000s, has stepped forward with a legal challenge that pulls back the curtain on what it describes as a vertically integrated, profit-maximizing structure—one that quietly prioritizes commercial alignment over consumer choice.
According to VoIP-Pal's complaint, this isn't about innovation—or even competition. It's about designing a mobile ecosystem where only a privileged few get full system access: the carriers, and the platforms they work with. Everyone else—including lawful, certified VoIP providers—must operate with lesser access, fewer privileges, and no ability to issue their own phone numbers or integrate into the dialer or messaging systems.
And who pays the price?
You do. The American subscriber. The student in rural Montana, the grandmother in a nursing home, the small business trying to cut telecom costs. All locked into overpriced carrier bundles, unable to access standalone Wi-Fi calling that could cost as little as $6.50 a month—if the system weren't tilted by design.
"This isn't a market that failed to evolve," VoIP-Pal argues. "It's a market that was prevented from evolving—by policies and privilege-gating that protect profit over progress."
The lawsuit doesn't just point fingers. It calls for change: equal access, open competition, and a future where voice and messaging services are no longer locked behind carrier paywalls or platform constraints.
For the first time in decades, the mobile industry may finally be forced to answer a question it has long ignored:
Why can't consumers choose a better way to connect?
VoIP-Pal's Latest Lawsuit Is a Game Changer for 373 Million Subscribers—Restoring Choice and Competition in U.S. Mobile Voice Service
This is one of the most sweeping antitrust lawsuits of the 21st century. VoIP-Pal.com Inc. has filed a new federal complaint against Google, Apple, and Samsung, accusing the tech giants of operating a vertically integrated enterprise that systematically favors carrier partners through platform-level privileges.
The suit, filed in tandem with separate litigation against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, alleges a six-party structure that ranks VoIP competitors as second-tier providers, granting them limited access to features like the dialer, calling APIs, or phone number provisioning—privileges automatically extended to carriers.
"The three Defendants—Google, Apple, and Samsung—working closely with their carrier co-conspirators, have built a system where only carrier-certified software receives full native privileges, including access to the dialer, background call handling, emergency access, and battery optimization." — VoIP-Pal Complaint
In its newly filed platform complaint, VoIP-Pal seeks $25 billion in damages—rising to $75 billion after trebling under federal antitrust and RICO statutes. Separately, the ongoing lawsuits against the three carrier co-conspirators seek $346.86 billion in damages. Together, they expose a closed ecosystem that has extracted over half a trillion dollars in consumer and market value through structural inequality.
Why Can't Lawful VoIP Apps Compete on Equal Terms?
The core question raised by VoIP-Pal's lawsuit is deceptively simple:
Why can't a lawful VoIP provider assign a real phone number and operate natively—just like a carrier?
The answer, according to VoIP-Pal, lies in how Android and iOS are structured. While VoIP apps are allowed on these platforms, they are treated as second-class citizens. They must operate through standalone apps, are restricted from using system dialers, and cannot provision their own phone numbers unless routed through a carrier intermediary. Native calling integration remains reserved for pre-approved, carrier-certified entities.
Meanwhile, the companies that build and sell smartphones—Apple, Samsung, and Google—reinforce this disparity through firmware, default settings, and retail partnerships that prioritize carrier-linked services.
As a result, consumers are locked into high-priced voice plans, despite Wi-Fi being the dominant transport for mobile calls.
VoIP-Pal: The Inventor Sidelined by the System It Helped Build
VoIP-Pal's role in this story is central. The company developed the call classification and routing logic in the early 2000s that underpins what we now know as Wi-Fi Calling. After publicly demonstrating this system in 2005 and securing U.S. patents, VoIP-Pal attempted to commercialize a standalone service.
But while it was permitted to launch apps, VoIP-Pal was never granted the same level of access given to carriers. Its functionality was allegedly adopted into system-integrated platforms, but the company could not deploy it with the same privileges.
"This isn't just an uneven playing field," the complaint states. "It's a structural gate that locks VoIP-Pal behind app-based constraints—while its innovations are used at the system level by those it competes against."
What Changes If Access Becomes Equal?
VoIP-Pal argues that one simple shift—granting lawful VoIP apps the right to provision numbers and integrate into the dialer—would transform the market.
If a provider like WhatsApp could register and support its own phone numbers with native call access, users could drop traditional carriers for Wi-Fi-based calling. Monthly bills could fall from $100+ to under $10, and global accessibility would explode.
This isn't a pipe dream. It's an infrastructure already built—but guarded by selective privilege.
This Is Not Just Antitrust—It's a Map for Structural Reform
The complaint accuses the six parties of violating:
Sherman Act §§ 1 & 2 – for collusive conduct and monopolization
Clayton Act §§ 3, 4, 14 – for exclusive dealing and damages
RICO §§ 1962(c) and (d) – for maintaining an exclusionary enterprise
Telecommunications Act § 251 – for discriminatory access to essential infrastructure
Essential Facility Doctrine – for denying shared access to critical systems
It's not just that VoIP-Pal lost market share. The entire U.S. voice market, the complaint alleges, was engineered to ensure that no non-carrier provider could compete on equal terms—even when technically capable.
Who Wins, Who Loses?
According to the complaint:
Apple and Google win through App Store fees, SDK control, and revenue-sharing with carriers.
Samsung, Apple, and Pixel devices retain subsidies and retail control by prioritizing carrier-linked defaults.
Carriers benefit the most—offloading Wi-Fi call traffic while charging as if using premium cellular.
The real losers are the consumers—especially the vulnerable, elderly, and low-income populations who rely on Wi-Fi but are not given real alternatives.
"This isn't a technical limitation. It's a policy. One that profits from exclusion." — VoIP-Pal Complaint
The Final Question: Can Anyone Else Offer You a Phone Number?
VoIP-Pal's lawsuit ends with a fundamental challenge:
Should any lawful VoIP provider be allowed to provision and support phone numbers—independent of a carrier—and receive full integration privileges on Android or iOS?
Today, the answer is no. Not because of safety, or bandwidth, or legality—but because the system architecture denies full privileges to non-carrier entities.
"They didn't earn this advantage through merit," VoIP-Pal concludes. "They preserved it through privilege."
As federal courts begin to hear the case, the outcome may determine whether mobile voice service in the U.S. remains closed—or finally opens to competition, innovation, and choice.
An extended interview with VoIP-Pal CEO Emil Malak, exploring the legal and technical foundation of this lawsuit, will be published soon.
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.
