## Facts

- AT&T Mobility LLC and T-Mobile USA, Inc. are competing nationwide wireless providers.
- In August 2022, T-Mobile launched a national advertising campaign branded “Banned Seniors,” directed at consumers age 55 and older.
- The campaign used a dedicated website asserting that AT&T “ban[s] senior discounts” outside Florida and claiming “92% of seniors in the U.S. can’t get a 55+ discount from … AT&T because they don’t live in Florida.”
- The website included comparative visuals, including a map depicting AT&T’s alleged 55+ discount availability only in Florida and T-Mobile’s availability nationwide, and a graphic presenting options such as switching carriers or moving to Florida.
- AT&T contended it offers senior discounts nationwide through multiple programs, including discounts available through AARP, and alleged T-Mobile’s campaign falsely implied AT&T offers senior discounts only in Florida.
- AT&T sued in September 2022 and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the “Banned Seniors” campaign during litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether AT&T showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its Lanham Act false-advertising theory challenging the “Banned Seniors” campaign.
2. Whether AT&T satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction requirements, including irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

## Decision

- The court denied AT&T’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found AT&T failed to carry its burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court treated the challenged messaging as, at most, ambiguous in context and not shown on this record to be literally false.
- Because likely success was not shown, the court did not rely heavily on the remaining preliminary-injunction factors.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must show (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm, (3) balance of hardships favors the movant, and (4) the injunction would not disserve the public interest.
- In Lanham Act false-advertising disputes, a plaintiff seeking early injunctive relief must make a strong showing that challenged statements are either literally false or, if ambiguous/impliedly misleading, supported by extrinsic evidence showing actual or likely consumer deception.
- Where advertising claims depend on definitions and conditions embedded in complex offerings, a court may view the claims as not susceptible to a single, clearly false meaning on a preliminary record.
- Courts are cautious about enjoining comparative commercial speech absent clear proof of falsity and likely deception.

## Conclusion

The court refused to halt T-Mobile’s “Banned Seniors” comparative ads at the preliminary-injunction stage because AT&T did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of proving actionable falsity or consumer deception under the Lanham Act on the record presented.


AT&T Mobility LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2023 WL 186809 (E.D. Tex. 2023)