The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. D is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington P alleges that D is 'registered to do business in the State of Texas' and that it 'does business in the State of Texas.' D does significant business in Texas. D employs 'hundreds if not thousands of Texans,' maintains a Texas registered agent, pays Texas franchise taxes, and has an extensive physical presence in Texas, which includes cell towers, hundreds of retail stores, and a corporate office in Frisco. D launched its 'Banned Seniors' advertising campaign. It is a nationwide marketing and advertising initiative intended to attract customers over the age of fifty-five. It consists of a website, www.BannedSeniors.com, which states that P only offers its senior discount plan to residents of Florida. Thus, 92% of seniors in the United States cannot get a wireless discount from P because they do not live in Florida. Of course, according to D, you can move to Florida or switch to D to get a 55+ Discount. D is shown offering discounts in each of the lower forty-eight states and not just Florida. P contends that the core premise of the Banned Seniors campaign is false. P offers discounts to senior citizens across the country through the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Through AARP, AT&T offers millions of seniors across every state discounts on monthly service charges and activation fees. P sued D alleging that D violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act by making false advertisements on the Website. P filed an application for preliminary injunction on the same day that it filed its original complaint. D filed its present motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.