- After its Luke Wilson ads triggered backlash from an ad watchdog, AT&T filed suit against the BBB’s National Programs, claiming the group is trying to censor its campaign
- AT&T argues its ads calling out T-Mobile’s “deceptive” marketing are protected under the First Amendment
- It’s highly unusual for a company to sue the NAD – it’s a self-policing body meant to keep advertisers honest – but AT&T says the process is broken
AT&T’s ads featuring the actor Luke Wilson lamenting T-Mobile’s “untruths” got the Dallas-based carrier in a whole lot of hot water with a national ad watchdog group last week.
But now AT&T is taking the unusual step of throwing cold water on those complaints with a lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. The defendant? Not T-Mobile, but the BBB National Programs Inc. advertising watchdog.
It all started, more or less, on October 23 when AT&T rolled out an ad campaign that took aim at T-Mobile and called out T-Mobile's marketing “hustle.” The campaign is titled "Ain't our first rodeo."
Wilson is shown in a commercial walking along a dusty country road, where he says “T-Mobile is the master of breaking promises,” with a mock newspaper headline saying: “T-Mobile most challenged for deceptive ads.” The ad bears a resemblance to a spot T-Mobile aired earlier this year that featured Billy Bob Thornton declaring its network “the best” after years of Verizon’s dominance in that department.
Along with the ad, AT&T distributed a press release stating that the BBB’s National Advertising Division (NAD) asked T-Mobile to correct its marketing claims 16 times over the course of the last four years – one correction per quarter.
The NAD didn’t like that and a week ago sent a “cease and desist” letter to AT&T, issuing a press release saying AT&T violated its National Advertising Review Board (NARB) procedures by citing the NAD process and findings in its ads. It’s a “no-no” to use NAB/NARB decisions in advertising or promotional materials, according to the organization.
The reprimand spooked advertisers enough that “multiple” TV networks stopped running AT&T’s ads due to NAD’s public statements. That response preceded AT&T’s district court filing.
AT&T stands by ads
An AT&T spokesperson declined to say how many TV networks stopped running the Wilson ad or which networks, saying they don’t share competitively sensitive details about advertising strategy or media buys.
“Some companies mislead customers; others stand up for them. AT&T thinks all consumers deserve to hear the truth, even if it makes T-Mobile uncomfortable,” AT&T Chief Operating Officer Jeff McElfresh said in a statement.
The operator wants the court to declare that AT&T’s advertisement and press release do not violate NAD procedures; that NAD’s procedures are unenforceable against AT&T; and that the First Amendment prohibits the BBB National Programs from obtaining an injunction requiring AT&T to take down its press release or end its advertising campaign.
NAD: Self-policing organization
It’s an unusual step on AT&T’s part to sue NAD. Fierce has covered a good share of the NAB’s decisions over the years and this is the first we’ve heard of a carrier filing suit against the group.
The whole premise of NAD is for industries to self-regulate and make sure U.S. advertising is truthful and not misleading. As one might expect, the wireless industry has brought its fair share of cases before the entity, which is not a government agency but a private, non-profit system.
Typically how it works is a company will file what they call a “challenge” to a competitor’s advertising claims and NAD will investigate. Eventually, NAD releases a decision, sometimes with recommendations on how to fix it or make an ad more accurate. Companies can file an appeal to the NARB if they disagree; occasionally cases are referred to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
AT&T says at the crux of its complaint is a pattern of the NAD finding misleading, false or unsubstantiated statements in T-Mobile’s ads but an inability to do much about it.
“Over and over, T-Mobile has gamed the system to avoid timely redressing its behavior. NAD’s process is often slow and T-Mobile knows it can make that process even slower by asking for extensions and delaying fixes,” AT&T said in its suit. “As a practical matter, this strategy keeps T-Mobile’s deceptive advertisements on air for months, allowing T-Mobile to continue misleading consumers while avoiding meaningful consequences.”
A representative at BBB National Programs declined to comment on AT&T’s suit.
Fierce reached out to T-Mobile and will update this story if we hear back.