Many posted responses seem to be in direct response to the actual wording of the Slashdot post, but the wording of the post may not be entirely clear.
This lawsuit is filed by the Attorney General's office, as the post reports, but it is filed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This lawsuit concerns how Vonage ADVERTISES it's broadband service product, and not how it implements it or whether Vonage is in some way legally responsible for the failure to contact 9-1-1. Many of these posts seem to repeat how VoIP technology is implemented and how Vonage provides clear details on 9-1-1 service during account setup. This is not about account setup, configuration, or technological implementation. It is about advertising.
The Texas AG contends that 9-1-1 service is a critical consideration in the purchase of the product, and as such, statements about 9-1-1 service limitations should be included in its advertising. This argument falls under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
One might say, "But it says so in a FAQ", "It's on a web site", "It's in the service agreement!", and "There are multiple warnings during the configuration process". This does not matter. If Vonage releases a sales brochure pitching this product without reporting limitations which would be reasonable of critical consideration in the purchase of the product, it may fall under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The unfortunate occurrence of the violent break-in and the child unable to access 9-1-1 services is, to state bluntly, emotional dressing to get people's attention and awareness to the lawsuit and an example of potential consequence to illustrate that 9-1-1 service is a critical component of the product.
Slashdot Mirror
Many posted responses seem to be in direct response to the actual wording of the Slashdot post, but the wording of the post may not be entirely clear.
This lawsuit is filed by the Attorney General's office, as the post reports, but it is filed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. This lawsuit concerns how Vonage ADVERTISES it's broadband service product, and not how it implements it or whether Vonage is in some way legally responsible for the failure to contact 9-1-1. Many of these posts seem to repeat how VoIP technology is implemented and how Vonage provides clear details on 9-1-1 service during account setup. This is not about account setup, configuration, or technological implementation. It is about advertising.
The Texas AG contends that 9-1-1 service is a critical consideration in the purchase of the product, and as such, statements about 9-1-1 service limitations should be included in its advertising. This argument falls under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
One might say, "But it says so in a FAQ", "It's on a web site", "It's in the service agreement!", and "There are multiple warnings during the configuration process". This does not matter. If Vonage releases a sales brochure pitching this product without reporting limitations which would be reasonable of critical consideration in the purchase of the product, it may fall under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The unfortunate occurrence of the violent break-in and the child unable to access 9-1-1 services is, to state bluntly, emotional dressing to get people's attention and awareness to the lawsuit and an example of potential consequence to illustrate that 9-1-1 service is a critical component of the product.