Previous Articles:
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust110224.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust121824.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust042325.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust061225.html
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 article is published for informational purposes only and does not allege, imply, or assert independent wrongdoing by any named defendant. VoIP-
Introduction
Following prior coverage of the second amended complaint filed by VoIP-
This latest filing brings a nationwide class action on behalf of U.S. smartphone users who, according to the complaint, have been systematically denied equal access to standalone Wi-
Clarifying the Four-
VoIP-
The first and second complaints target AT&T, Verizon, and T-
o The first (Case No. 1:24-
o The second (Case No. 1:24-
The third and fourth complaints target Google, Apple, and Samsung:
o The third (Case No. 1:25-
o The fourth (Case No. 1:25-
o All damages will be subject to damages expert verifications.
Upcoming Motion Response – August 1, 2025
As of this writing, the defendants in the first carrier antitrust case—AT&T, Verizon, and T-
Q&A With Emil Malak, Chairman and CEO of VoIP-
Edited for clarity and legal accuracy. Published June 30, 2025.
Q: VoIP-
A: That's a fair question, and one our shareholders deserve clarity on. Our intent has never been to file lawsuits endlessly. We've filed four related complaints that collectively allege coordinated exclusion by six companies. Our focus now is to prosecute those cases strategically—not expand them.
Q: Are you seeking to consolidate the four cases?
A: We've already requested consolidation of the two carrier-
Q: Could all four cases eventually be combined?
A: It's one of several procedural options we're evaluating. Given the factual overlap and related claims, we believe there's merit in considering unified treatment where appropriate.
Q: These kinds of cases often take years. What's your expectation?
A: Timelines can vary, but we don't expect this litigation to drag on indefinitely. We anticipate meaningful developments within the next few months.
Q: You seem confident. Why?
A: Because the legal foundations of our claims are well established in antitrust law. We believe the record will show that consumers have not had fair access to lawful alternatives like standalone Wi-
Q: If the court sides with your position, could this impact how the six defendants structure their businesses?
A: That's a question for the defendants. Our goal is to ensure equal and lawful access to voice infrastructure, consistent with federal law.
Q: VoIP-
A: That's up to them. We've made our platform available. Whether they find it valuable is a matter for their internal teams to evaluate.
Q: The defendants have so far opted to litigate. Are you concerned about the financial demands of extended proceedings?
A: We've adapted. This litigation is no longer confined to intellectual property—it's rooted in structural exclusion and consumer harm. That broadens the context and shifts the legal framework.
Q: Some might say that taking on six of the world's largest companies is overly ambitious.
A: History often favors those who challenge entrenched structures. We're not here to complain—we're here to pursue accountability through lawful means.
Q: Are you expecting support from federal agencies or consumer advocacy groups?
A: That's their call. But the legal parallels to past enforcement actions are evident, and we're confident our filings raise substantial issues worthy of attention.
Q: You've said before that Wi-
A: More than ever. People should have the freedom to choose how they make calls—without being forced to buy expensive bundles they don't need. This isn't just about 373 million Americans. It's a global issue. Over 7 billion people around the world use smartphones now, and being able to communicate over Wi-
Note: All monetary figures are based on publicly filed complaints and are presented as stated or reasonably inferred from those filings; estimates may vary depending on interpretation or future amendments.
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.