[May 4, 2005]

VoIP E911: Blumenthal Joins Cox, Sues Vonage

BY JOHANNE TORRES

Lawsuits over ineffective VoIP E911 access seem to pour in double shots for Vonage Holdings Corp. this year. The VoIP-based calling service provider just got slapped with a lawsuit from Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s Attorney General this week. The suit, to be filed in the Hartford Superior Court, accuses Vonage of misleading consumers in the state about E911 access when using the Internet telephony service.

This is the second reported lawsuit for Vonage so far this year following Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox’s legal efforts against the company for not being straightforward with its consumers about the service’s E911 access inefficiency.

For the state of Connecticut, Blumenthal didn’t act alone. Edwin R. Rodriguez, Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection joined the Connecticut Attorney General to accuse Vonage for allegedly violating the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"Consumers need to know exactly what their 9-1-1 emergency dialing capabilities are," Rodriguez said this week. "How Vonage represents that capability leaves a false impression that dialing 9-1-1 will result in direct contact with emergency dispatchers. There is evidence that that is not the case. As a matter of public safety, consumers need full disclosure of the facts in order to make a decision that could have life or death consequences."

Specifically, the lawsuit points out the company’s misrepresentation of its 9-1-1 dialing feature by failing to properly disclose that 9-1-1 calls over its service may take longer; may not be routed to a live operator; and are at greater risk of encountering a busy signal. Blumenthal and Rodriguez said that buried in fine print, the company also advises consumers to maintain other means of calling 9-1-1. The Connecticut state representatives see these limitations delaying or completely preventing emergency response.

"This lawsuit should send an emergency message to Vonage, and every Internet phone provider that 9-1-1 is too important for half-truths," Blumenthal said in an official office announcement. "Inadequate disclosure about 9-1-1 capabilities is not only bad business, its life threatening. The company deceptively leads consumers to believe their emergency access will be as reliable as conventional landlines. Every second wasted routing calls could mean life or death. This lawsuit should sound an alarm: Consumers need and deserve to know whether 9-1-1 means real, immediate human help, or an answering machine."

Blumenthal and Rodriguez Urge Caution

According to the statement released, "some VoIP services do not offer 9-1-1 access at all. Others may route 9-1-1 calls through administrative lines to call centers, rather than directly to local 9-1-1 emergency dispatchers. Emergency dispatchers may have more difficulty verifying the caller's address in these cases, causing response delays."

The representatives noted a Torrington, CT woman’s case: "[She dialed] 9-1-1 when her infant son required immediate medical attention. Rather than connecting to an emergency dispatcher, the woman's call was routed to the police department's main number where she was greeted by a recording."

Blumenthal began pursuing the case last month by warning consumers about companies offering Internet telephony-based calling services such as Vonage, Verizon, Comcast, Lingo and Dialpad. The Attorney General pointed out that despite the promise of additional features and lower rates than traditional landline telephone services, some VoIP service providers fail to offer the same 9-1-1 emergency network access as traditional phone services.

The state's lawsuit against Vonage seeks financial penalties and improved disclosures to consumers about its 9-1-1 service capabilities.