<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Verizon_5G_advertising_rulings</id>
	<title>Verizon 5G advertising rulings - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Verizon_5G_advertising_rulings"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Verizon_5G_advertising_rulings&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-06-15T05:34:15Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.44.0</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Verizon_5G_advertising_rulings&amp;diff=57881&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Louis: new page on the nad and narb 5g advertising rulings</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Verizon_5G_advertising_rulings&amp;diff=57881&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2026-06-14T21:40:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;new page on the nad and narb 5g advertising rulings&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;{{IncidentCargo&lt;br /&gt;
|Company=Verizon&lt;br /&gt;
|StartDate=2019-03-01&lt;br /&gt;
|EndDate=2020-09-02&lt;br /&gt;
|Status=Resolved&lt;br /&gt;
|ProductLine=&lt;br /&gt;
|Product=&lt;br /&gt;
|ArticleType=Service&lt;br /&gt;
|Type=Advertising,Telecommunications&lt;br /&gt;
|Description=NAD and NARB ruled that Verizon&amp;#039;s 5G ads overstated availability and capability its network did not yet deliver to most customers&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Verizon 5G advertising rulings&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were a series of decisions by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs that found Verizon&amp;#039;s television commercials overstated the availability and capability of a 5G network most of its customers could not yet use. [[AT&amp;amp;T]] Services, Inc. brought each challenge as a competing carrier.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite web |title=NAD Recommends Verizon Discontinue the Claim that it is Delivering &amp;quot;The Most Powerful 5G Experience for America&amp;quot; in Two TV Commercials; Advertiser to Appeal |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nad-recommends-verizon-discontinue-the-claim-that-it-is-delivering-the-most-powerful-5g-experience-for-america-in-two-tv-commercials-advertiser-to-appeal-301059468.html |publisher=PR Newswire |date=2020-05-14 |access-date=2026-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Wendy |title=Ad Watchdog Blesses Verizon&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;First To 5G&amp;#039; Claim |url=https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/344569/ad-watchdog-blesses-verizons-first-to-5g-claim.html |publisher=MediaPost |date=2019-12-13 |access-date=2026-06-14}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In December 2019, NAD permitted the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First to 5G&amp;#039;&amp;#039; claim only on condition that Verizon disclose its 5G service was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;more unavailable than available&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; In May 2020, NAD recommended Verizon discontinue the claim that it was delivering &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the most powerful 5G experience for America&amp;#039;&amp;#039;,&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; and in September 2020 a National Advertising Review Board (NARB) panel agreed the claim should be discontinued.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{Cite web |title=NARB: Verizon should nix &amp;quot;Building the most powerful 5G experience for America&amp;quot; |url=https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2020/narb-verizon-should-nix-building-the-most-powerful-5g-experience-for-america/ |publisher=Wireless Estimator |date=2020-09-02 |access-date=2026-06-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260117083015/https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2020/narb-verizon-should-nix-building-the-most-powerful-5g-experience-for-america/ |archive-date=2026-01-17 |url-status=live}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Background ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Verizon]] launched its mobile 5G service on April 3, 2019, in parts of Chicago and Minneapolis, the first mobile 5G deployment a U.S. carrier offered to consumers.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The 2019 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First to 5G&amp;#039;&amp;#039; commercials predated that launch: when AT&amp;amp;T first challenged them, Verizon had not yet turned on a mobile 5G network for consumers to use.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disputes ran through BBB National Programs, the advertising self-regulatory body, not a local Better Business Bureau handling individual consumer complaints. Its NAD reviews national advertising on competitor challenges, &amp;amp; a party that disagrees with an NAD recommendation may appeal to the NARB.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The rulings were recommendations from that self-regulatory body, not government orders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The 2019 &amp;quot;First to 5G&amp;quot; dispute ==&lt;br /&gt;
AT&amp;amp;T challenged Verizon&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First to 5G&amp;#039;&amp;#039; television commercials before NAD. The case turned on whether the ads told consumers a mobile 5G network was already running when, at the time of the first challenge, it was not.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The March 2019 ruling ===&lt;br /&gt;
NAD issued an opinion in March 2019, before Verizon&amp;#039;s mobile 5G network was available, recommending Verizon stop claiming to be the first carrier to offer 5G service.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Verizon initially said it would appeal, then instead asked NAD to reopen the case; after the April 3, 2019 Chicago &amp;amp; Minneapolis launch, it submitted proof that it had rolled out 5G service.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The December 2019 modified opinion ===&lt;br /&gt;
In a revised opinion issued the week of December 13, 2019, NAD accepted that Verizon&amp;#039;s localized launch could support a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;first&amp;#039;&amp;#039; claim. NAD wrote that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a small launch can support a &amp;#039;first&amp;#039; claim&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, adding that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;in parts of the downtown areas of certain cities, Verizon customers could get the blazing fast speeds that are the focus of 5G publicity&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NAD paired that with a disclosure requirement, recommending that Verizon add a disclaimer stating its 5G service was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;more unavailable than available&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; NAD also recommended Verizon revise a spot titled &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Beyond Speed: Real Time&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which showed students playing console-quality video games on mobile devices, finding the record did not support a claim that a passenger on a school bus would hold a 5G connection long enough to finish such a game. NAD wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The evidence suggests that Verizon&amp;#039;s 5G service drops out suddenly... and there was no evidence that a passenger on a school bus would retain a 5G connection for a sufficient amount of time to complete a &amp;amp;#39;console-quality multiplayer game on the go,&amp;amp;#39;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The 2020 &amp;quot;most powerful 5G experience&amp;quot; dispute ==&lt;br /&gt;
AT&amp;amp;T challenged two later Verizon commercials, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;NFL: 5G Built Right&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;amp; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;5G Built Right: Madison Square Garden&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which advertised that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Verizon is building the most powerful 5G experience for America&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Verizon&amp;#039;s mmWave 5G at the time reached only parts of select cities &amp;amp; parts of the stadiums shown.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a decision announced May 14, 2020, NAD found that the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;building&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did not stop the ads from conveying a present-tense message. NAD wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;NAD determined that in the context of the challenged advertising, at least one message reasonably conveyed to consumers by the express claim that &amp;quot;Verizon is building the most powerful 5G experience for America&amp;quot; is the present tense message that Verizon is delivering &amp;quot;the most powerful 5G network for America.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NAD concluded Verizon&amp;#039;s evidence was insufficient to support that present-tense superiority claim &amp;amp; recommended the claim be dropped:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After reviewing Verizon&amp;#039;s evidence, NAD concluded that it was insufficient to support Verizon&amp;#039;s present tense &amp;quot;most powerful network&amp;quot; claim. Therefore, NAD recommended that Verizon discontinue the claim that it is delivering &amp;quot;the most powerful 5G experience for America.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NAD separately found the on-screen disclosures inadequate. It recommended Verizon make the disclosures about 5G coverage clear &amp;amp; conspicuous, noting they appeared in small white text on a rapidly changing background, &amp;amp; that the ads should disclose Verizon&amp;#039;s 5G service was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;available only in parts of select cities&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Verizon&amp;#039;s response and NARB appeal ===&lt;br /&gt;
Verizon agreed to comply with the disclosure recommendations but appealed the core finding to the NARB. In its advertiser&amp;#039;s statement, Verizon said the intent of the commercials was to inform consumers about the billions of dollars it was investing in its 5G build-out, &amp;amp; that consumers understood that to be the only message reasonably conveyed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;prnewswire&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On September 2, 2020, a NARB panel announced its decision. The panel agreed with Verizon that the commercials did not convey a present-tense message of general availability:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The NARB panel concluded that the two commercials did not communicate a &amp;quot;present tense&amp;quot; network message to reasonable consumers, i.e. that the commercials do not communicate that a Verizon 5G network is generally available in the United States but, rather, that Verizon is committed to building a first-rate 5G network.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The panel still recommended the claim be discontinued, on the ground that the record did not establish what consumers understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;powerful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to mean. It wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The panel therefore concluded that absent this evidence of consumer understanding of the term &amp;quot;powerful,&amp;quot; Verizon did not have proper support for the claim &amp;quot;Verizon is building the most powerful 5G experience for America&amp;quot; and recommended that it be discontinued.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The panel noted a non-comparative version of the claim would have been supported by the record.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; Verizon said it disagreed that the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;most powerful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; claim was unsubstantiated but agreed to comply, noting it was pleased the NARB had overturned NAD&amp;#039;s finding that certain claims were implied.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;wirelessestimator&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Industry context ==&lt;br /&gt;
The two Verizon rulings landed while AT&amp;amp;T, the challenger in both cases, was defending its own 5G marketing. AT&amp;amp;T faced challenges over ads using the phrase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;5G Evolution&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, a point MediaPost noted in its coverage of the December 2019 Verizon decision.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;mediapost&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; The disputes were a self-regulatory check on carrier claims rather than action by the [[Federal Communications Commission]], which did not rule on the semantics of the advertising.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Verizon]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Telecommunications]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Advertising]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:2019 incidents]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Louis</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>