ORCA
2 days ago
I JUST READ THE WHOLE THING.WOW.VPLM BIG BALLS.A MUST READ TO THE END.I ALSO ADDED 300K AT .01.
? VoIP-Pal's Second Amended Antitrust Complaint (April 2025)
? Second Amended Class Action Complaint (April 2025)
Editorial by Bud Wayne
Second Amended Complaints Allege $62.84 Billion for VoIP-Pal and $146.63 Billion for 373 million Subscribers—With Treble Damages Sought Under RICO and Antitrust Law
Potentially the Most Comprehensive RICO and Antitrust Case Ever Filed Against U.S. Telecom Carriers
VoIP-Pal.com Inc. has filed two Second Amended Complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: (1) a standalone Antitrust and RICO Complaint, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-cv-03051 RDM and (2) a nationwide Class Action on behalf of 373 million mobile subscribers, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-03054 RDM. The combined damages alleged by VoIP-Pal ($62.84 billion) and 373 million U.S. mobile subscribers ($146.63 billion)—when multiplied by the mandatory treble damages provision under the RICO Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c))—represent a total estimated exposure of $628.41 billion. If validated in court, this would establish one of the most substantial coordinated enforcement actions for enterprise fraud, racketeering, and market exclusion in U.S. legal history.
These claims arise from an alleged nationwide scheme by AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, who are accused of unlawfully deploying VoIP-Pal's proprietary DID-based routing system, forcibly tying Wi-Fi Calling to paid cellular services, and misrepresenting it as "no charge"—thereby offloading infrastructure costs onto consumers while suppressing lawful market alternatives.
Under RICO, courts may award mandatory treble damages in cases involving predicate acts such as wire and mail fraud, deceptive service representations, and enterprise-level coordination. If successful, the Court may also impose an equitable lien under §§ 48, 56, and 58 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, securing more than $209.47 billion in allegedly traceable revenues derived from the conduct—ensuring the proceeds are available for potential restitution.
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-Pal formally served all three Defendants—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile—in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This milestone confirms that litigation is now active and proceeding, and that all parties are officially on notice of the claims asserted.
Two Cases, One Alleged Unified Fraud
The VoIP-Pal Antitrust and RICO Complaint and the Class Action Complaint are identical in structure, allege the same conduct, name the same defendants, and assert the same two core legal theories:
? Forced Tying of Wi-Fi Calling to Paid Cellular Services
? False Advertising of Wi-Fi Calling as "No Charge"
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 Structur
judge Amit Mehta
U.S. v. Google LLC, 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C.), August 5, 2024:
"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-cv-00108 (E.D. Va.), April 17, 2025:
"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-Pal's pending cases.
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-Pal Antitrust Complaint and the nationwide Class Action over six months ago, the Defendants continue to operate business as usual. There is still no standalone Wi-Fi Calling plan. The forced tying of paid cellular calling and texting to Wi-Fi Calling remains in place, depriving consumers of choice and perpetuating unlawful profiteering from VoIP-Pal's unlicensed technology.
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-up of racketeering conduct.
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-Pal
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-Pal, but for what they've done to every subscriber in this country. This is about the illegal DIDs deployment of private Wi-Fi routing systems—and the deliberate abuse of 373 million people, who have been misled, overbilled, and denied fair access to communications alternative
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-Fi Calling back in 2005. It's being used without compensation. We're standing up not just for VoIP-Pal, but for the principle that no company should be excluded from the market it helped build.
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-Fi call from home, work, school, or a coffee shop—using an internet connection you already pay for. But instead of giving you a choice, your carrier hijacks that connection, routes the call through their own system, and still charges you as if you were using their cellular network. You don't get a discount, you don't get credit, and you have no option to separate Wi-Fi Calling from your mobile plan.
Worse, when you look at your invoice, you'll often see "Wi-Fi Calling: No Charge". That line is a deliberate deception. The subscriber is in fact paying twice: once for the Wi-Fi or broadband service used to initiate the call, and again for the cellular service and spectrum tied to Wi-Fi Calling through bundled billing. This is not just misleading—it's dishonest and abusive. It hides the true cost of the service while allowing the carriers to offload infrastructure burdens and keep all the savings.
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-Fi. Meanwhile, if offered fairly, standalone Wi-Fi Calling could cost as little as $6.50 per person, or $20 a month for an entire family—a solution that could transform budgeting for millions of struggling households across the country.
But the carriers don't offer that choice. They refuse to unbundle the service, because offloading calls onto Wi-Fi saves them infrastructure costs while charging consumers full cellular rates. This isn't innovation—it's exploitation. If given the option, millions of low-income families would instantly switch to standalone Wi-Fi Calling to escape bloated cellular bundles. But that option is being deliberately withheld.
If you're outside of Wi-Fi range, legal VoIP providers already offer 100 minutes for $3—a fraction of what mobile carriers charge. This isn't about technology—it's about market control, consumer suppression, and illegal tying in direct violation of the Sherman Act, the RICO Statute, and the Telecommunications Act. The system is rigged. We're here to expose it.
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-Mobile report over $200 billion a year in gross profit, and they're not earning it by fair competition. Our two complaints demonstrate that they have engaged in systematic, enterprise-level racketeering by forcibly tying Wi-Fi Calling to paid cellular calling and texting plans, giving subscribers no standalone option, no discount, and no informed choice.
Between 2018 and 2024, we calculate that the carriers have saved nearly $209.47 billion by offloading voice traffic onto subscriber-funded Wi-Fi networks—without providing standalone service options or transparency. This conduct doesn't just overcharge consumers. It also excludes lawful VoIP competitors, enables the unauthorized deployment of private routing systems, and conceals the fraud behind misleading "no charge" advertising and a locked, anticompetitive ecosystem.
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-Fi Calling is no longer a fringe feature—it's become the backbone of modern mobile communication. We believe that over 60% of all voice calls are now initiated over Wi-Fi, and that number will continue to rise each year as users rely more on home and public broadband networks to stay connected.
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-related profits, as subscribers increasingly seek more transparent, affordable, and flexible alternatives.
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.
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
DollarDrone
7 hours ago
nyt
17 hours ago
Nick Papagiorgio
2 days ago
sunspotter
2 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
