Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) News - VPLM

Article: VoIP-Pal.com sues tech giants over Wi-Fi Calling market exclusion

The company alleges coordinated exclusionary practices that prevent competition from standalone Wi-Fi Calling.

VoIP-Pal.com Inc., a Bellevue, Washington-based company that developed and patented a platform for delivering Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP), has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Google, Apple, and Samsung—with non-defendant companies AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile named as co-conspirators—alleging that it “never had the chance to enter the Wi-Fi Calling market” because these companies have engaged in a coordinated effort to suppress competition in the standalone Wi-Fi Calling market, thereby harming VoIP-Pal and consumers by denying access to non-carrier Wi-Fi-based calling options. VoIP-Pal alleges that the companies’ alleged abuse of market dominance and their exclusionary practices violate the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the RICO Act (Voip-Pal.Com Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01843 (D.D.C. Jun. 11, 2025)).

Alleged conduct. VoIP-Pal alleges that Google and Apple, as operating system gatekeepers, and Samsung, as a hardware manufacturer, have deliberately structured their platforms to favor carrier-integrated Wi-Fi Calling services while systematically denying VoIP competitors access to essential system-level privileges. VoIP-Pal alleges that Google and Apple restricted access to telephony APIs, native dialers, and emergency calling features, granting these privileges exclusively to carrier-certified apps. Apple, Samsung, and Google also allegedly “preload carrier-preferred configurations on their devices by default,” “[l]ock down firmware configurations to prevent third-party VoIP apps from functioning as full replacements for native telephony,” and “mplement carrier entitlements at the hardware level, ensuring that only carrier software is granted full system access.”

Regarding the carrier co-conspirators—AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile—VoIP-Pal alleges that they “[r]efuse Wi-Fi Calling integration or replacement with VoIP apps,” “[t]ie Wi-Fi Calling to postpaid cellular plans, while falsely advertising it as “included at no charge,” and “[m]anipulate consumer expectations, creating the widespread misperception that standalone Wi-Fi Calling has no value or standalone market.” VoIP-Pal claims that its patented technologies and platform, which enable seamless call routing and classification over Wi-Fi networks, and are “functionally tested and commercially viable,” have been structurally excluded, and that VoIP competitors have been “effectively denied meaningful entry through aligned technical and policy barriers.”

Aligned conduct across platforms and hardware. The complaint describes a “vertically integrated exclusionary enterprise” where Google’s Android OS and Apple’s iOS grant full telephony privileges exclusively to carrier-affiliated services, while VoIP competitors are relegated to degraded app status. Samsung and other device manufacturers allegedly reinforce this exclusion through “firmware and device-level configurations” and by “enforc[ing] technical constraints that block or degrade third-party call processing, messaging integration, and emergency dialing—effectively denying VoIP competitors access to core phone functionality.” VoIP-Pal argues that this alignment across operating systems, hardware, and carrier networks constitutes a coordinated effort to suppress competition.

Consumer harm and market foreclosure. VoIP-Pal contends that these practices harm consumers by preventing access to affordable standalone Wi-Fi Calling services. The complaint estimates that U.S. smartphone users could pay as little as $6.50 per month for standalone Wi-Fi Calling, compared to the $100+ monthly costs of bundled carrier plans. The complaint notes that “with the proliferation of Wi-Fi networks in homes, offices, and public spaces, most calling occurs now utilizing Wi-Fi Calling over users[’] own home, work, or public Wi-Fi,” and that “[t]here is no pricing benefit to consumers for using Wi-Fi Calling instead of carrier towers.” But, by tying Wi-Fi Calling to cellular services, carriers allegedly offload “billions in infrastructure costs onto consumers’ personal networks—but pass back none of the savings to consumers.” VoIP-Pal claims that this bundling strategy has resulted in “systemic exclusion of standalone VoIP services from meaningful market participation.”

Antitrust violations. VoIP-Pal alleges that Google, Apple, and Samsung “structured the ecosystem to prevent competitive VoIP entry into the Wi-Fi Calling market” and “maintained monopoly power by withholding technical privileges from rival providers.” The company alleges an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, through exclusionary agreements between Google, Apple, Samsung, and the carrier co-conspirators. The complaint further asserts monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Act, arguing that the companies have abused their market dominance to suppress competition and maintain control over mobile voice services. VoIP-Pal also alleges violations of Sections 3, 4, and 14 of the Clayton Act. The company alleges that Google, Apple, and Samsung “created a functional exclusivity regime” under which “[f]ull telephony privileges were only granted to carrier-integrated services,” and VoIP-Pal “was restricted to second-class app treatment without equal integration.” As a result, VoIP-Pal allegedly lost revenue by “not being able to license VoIP patents to OS vendors or OEMs,” and lost the opportunity “to commercialize or operate a standalone VoIP platform integrated as Wi-Fi Calling,” as well as “access to the national smartphone Wi-Fi Calling market,” and has sought treble damages. VoIP-Pal has alleged personal liability against the board members and general counsel at Apple, Google, and Samsung under Section 14 of the Clayton Act, for “knowingly perpetuating a design that inflicted economic harm.”

Civil RICO claims. VoIP-Pal alleges that Google, Apple, and Samsung’s conduct manifested as “a pattern of exclusion maintained through deceptive coordination and commercial misrepresentation,” which included “false advertising that Wi-Fi Calling is ‘free’ when access is restricted,” “technical concealment of exclusion via carrier entitlements and firmware defaults,” and “concerted acts that, taken together, form a pattern of racketeering.” VoIP-Pal alleges violations of §§ 1962(c) and (d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The complaint describes a pattern of fraudulent misrepresentation and exclusionary practices designed to suppress VoIP competition. VoIP-Pal claims that it was a “direct target of racketeering activity” involving “[p]latform misrepresentation that VoIP was welcome when in fact it was barred,” and “[e]nterprise-wide deception to sustain dominance and suppress VoIP alternatives.”

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01843.

Attorneys: John Travis Pittman (Holmes Pittman & Haraguchi, LLP) for Voip-Pal.com, Inc.

Companies: Voip-Pal.com, Inc.; Apple Inc.

News: Antitrust Advertising RICO DistrictofColumbiaNews

https://www.vitallaw.com/news/antitrust-news-voip-pal-com-sues-tech-giants-over-wi-fi-calling-market-exclusion/ald01cf9f4fe478234aabb9c9c5cef488908f

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 exclusive control over mobile voice identity and subscriber routing. Instead, they would be reduced to commodity providers of basic connectivity.

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 system-level integration privileges, such as number provisioning and native dialer access, to all lawful VoIP competitors—not just pre-certified carriers.

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 locked into a carrier relationship.

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 closed access, technical gatekeeping, and coordinated market exclusion. If competition is restored, that figure could drop to a fraction—perhaps closer to $65 billion—as alternative providers enter the market.

Consider the implications if messaging platforms like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger were allowed to issue real phone numbers and integrate them directly into the operating system, just like carriers do today. They wouldn't just be apps. They'd become de facto voice providers—followed by dozens more.

This case doesn't ask the Court to dismantle the system. It asks the Court to open the gate. And when that gate opens, innovation follows.

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 exclusionary enterprise. The suit, filed in tandem with ongoing litigation against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, alleges a six-party scheme that systematically blocks lawful competition in mobile voice services and prevents consumers from accessing affordable alternatives to traditional phone plans.

"The three Defendants — Google, Apple, and Samsung — working closely with their carrier co-conspirators, have built a system where only carrier-certified software receive full native privileges, including access to the native dialer, background calling, emergency access, and battery optimization." — VoIP-Pal Complaint

In its newly filed platform complaint against Google, Apple, and Samsung, VoIP-Pal seeks $25 billion in damages—rising to $75 billion after trebling under federal antitrust and RICO statutes. Separately, VoIP-Pal's active antitrust and class action lawsuits against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile seeks $346.86 billion in combined damages. Across both actions, the coordinated exclusionary structure described in the filings represents over half a trillion dollars in allegedly unlawful profit extraction from the mobile ecosystem.

At the heart of the claim is a question that VoIP-Pal believes regulators, courts, and consumers must now confront:

Why, in a world dominated by Wi-Fi, can no one offer a phone number without a carrier's permission?

A Decade-Long Lockout Hidden in Plain Sight

The lawsuit outlines how Google and Apple, who collectively control more than 99% of the global mobile operating system market, allegedly act as first-layer gatekeepers. Their operating systems—Android and iOS—are essential to the function of all smartphones. Yet, according to VoIP-Pal, they selectively restrict access to dialers, phone number provisioning, and call-handling APIs in a way that gives exclusive advantage to their carrier partners: AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

The complaint argues that phone manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and Google (via Pixel) reinforce this exclusion by embedding firmware and default settings that limit device-level switching to independent VoIP providers. Meanwhile, carriers maintain leverage by making retail availability, subsidies, and network certification contingent on continued platform alignment.

Through this multi-tiered control, VoIP-Pal alleges, the six companies preserve a bundled business model that forces consumers into $100+ per month plans—even as the bulk of voice traffic is now carried over Wi-Fi.

Why VoIP-Pal Is Involved

VoIP-Pal's involvement is not incidental. The company is the original developer of the patented routing and call classification technology that enables Wi-Fi-initiated mobile voice calls. Its innovations, dating back to the early 2000s, laid the technical groundwork for standalone Wi-Fi Calling as it exists today. According to the complaint, these methods were later embedded into carrier-integrated platforms—while VoIP-Pal itself was locked out of access to the infrastructure necessary to offer its own services legally and competitively.

The Locked Door Behind Every Smartphone

VoIP-Pal's position is grounded in both technology and timing. The company began developing its patented routing and classification system for IP-based mobile calling in the early 2000s, long before Wi-Fi calling became mainstream. In 2005, it publicly disclosed its solution and later conducted a third-party verified Proof of Concept audit that confirmed the system could handle full mobile-originated voice calls over Wi-Fi—without relying on traditional carrier infrastructure.

But despite developing the core functionality behind what's now marketed as Wi-Fi Calling, VoIP-Pal says it was systematically denied integration into operating systems and native dialers.

Instead, the company alleges, its functionality was copied into carrier-integrated apps and operating systems, and then locked behind infrastructure access it was never permitted to use.

"This isn't parallel innovation," the complaint asserts. "It's commercial deployment of the exact system we built—while blocking us from offering it ourselves."

What Happens If the Gate Is Opened?

One of the most important hypotheticals raised in the complaint is surprisingly simple:

What if a VoIP app like WhatsApp were granted its own user-assigned phone numbers—and given native integration into iOS and Android?

According to VoIP-Pal, that single structural change could upend the entire voice services market. If a provider like WhatsApp were permitted to assign and support its own phone numbers—and gain equal access to the phone's native dialer—consumers could bypass traditional carrier plans altogether. Wi-Fi-based calling, priced at a fraction of current monthly rates, would become a mainstream alternative.

VoIP-Pal argues that this future isn't blocked by technical limitations, but by structural exclusion. The systems to support it already exist—but access is restricted to a closed group of incumbent carriers and platform partners. The result, the complaint claims, is a market held in place not by necessity, but by coordinated control.

Not Just an Antitrust Case—A Blueprint for Market Change

The complaint accuses the six defendants of violating multiple core federal laws:

? Sherman Act § 1 & 2 – for coordination and monopolization

? Clayton Act §§ 3, 4, 14 – for exclusive dealing and damages liability

? RICO §§ 1962(c) and (d) – alleging an ongoing exclusionary enterprise

? Telecommunications Act § 251 – for denial of access to essential infrastructure

? Essential Facility Doctrine – for blocking access to infrastructure that could otherwise be shared

The claim isn't limited to VoIP-Pal's own exclusion—it suggests that the entire mobile voice market has been artificially constrained by design. The result, the company argues, is billions in overcharges for consumers, deliberate suppression of innovation, and a systemic denial of lawful alternatives.

As the complaint explains:
"Together, the three Defendants and their three co-conspirators generate over $560 billion in gross profits annually through the current system. This is not a technological preference. It is a revenue-preservation strategy, achieved through technical exclusion; consumer deception; and privilege gating." — VoIP-Pal Complaint

Who Profits, and Who Pays?

According to the complaint:

? Google and Apple profit by protecting App Store fees, SDK licensing, and revenue-sharing arrangements with carriers.

? Samsung, Apple, and Google Pixel devices remain locked into carrier-favored defaults to preserve subsidy pipelines that help justify inflated hardware pricing—now averaging $1,100 per device.

? AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile benefit most of all. They offload billions of dollars in call traffic onto users' home Wi-Fi networks—but continue billing as if each call used cellular infrastructure. It's "profit without delivery," VoIP-Pal alleges.

Meanwhile, consumers pay the price—not just through high monthly bills, but through the elimination of choice. The complaint highlights elderly residents in nursing homes, rural students, and low-income families with Wi-Fi access but no phone service—people who, in theory, could benefit most from standalone VoIP—but who remain locked out because of how the infrastructure is configured.

"This isn't a market failure," the lawsuit says. "It's a market locked from the inside."

The Stakes: Can Anyone Else Offer You a Phone Number?

VoIP-Pal's case raises a fundamental question: Should any lawful, certified VoIP provider be allowed to offer a full phone number, on a mainstream smartphone, without needing permission from a carrier?

Right now, the answer is no. Not because of cost, or regulation, or bandwidth—but because the dominant platforms deny access to the dialer, the APIs, and the systems required to make voice calls fully functional.

"They didn't earn this dominance through innovation," VoIP-Pal asserts. "They're preserving it through exclusion."

With lawsuits now filed in federal court, and damages modeled in the hundreds of billions, VoIP-Pal is betting that once the structure is revealed, courts—and consumers—won't accept it any longer.

A full interview with VoIP-Pal CEO Emil Malak, offering deeper insight into the case and its broader implications, will be published soon.

https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust061225.html

Boards:

Quotes:

Boards

News

Market Data

Markets

Discover

Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) (VPLM)

Real-time discussions and trading ideas: Trade with confidence with our powerful platform.

VPLM News

Form PRE 14C - Other preliminary information statements

Form 8-K - Current report

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 8-K - Current report

Form DEF 14C - Other definitive information statements

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)]

Form PRE 14C - Other preliminary information statements

Form 8-K - Current report

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405]

VPLM Discussion

Your Recent History

Boards:

Quotes:

Boards

News

Market Data

Markets

Discover

Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) (VPLM) News

Voip Pal Com Inc (QB) (VPLM)

Real-time discussions and trading ideas: Trade with confidence with our powerful platform.

VPLM News

Form PRE 14C - Other preliminary information statements

Form 8-K - Current report

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 8-K - Current report

Form DEF 14C - Other definitive information statements

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 10-Q - Quarterly report [Sections 13 or 15(d)]

Form PRE 14C - Other preliminary information statements

Form 8-K - Current report

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 4 - Statement of changes in beneficial ownership of securities

Form 144 - Report of proposed sale of securities

Form 10-K - Annual report [Section 13 and 15(d), not S-K Item 405]

VPLM Discussion

Your Recent History

Go Ad-Free