Connecticut is the latest state to sue Vonage for misrepresenting the way in which the service handles "911" calls.
Seems to me that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal instructed his staff to obtain a copy of the Texas suit - and after doing so, did some CPR (cut, paste, rewrite). Then, they drafted the current suit.
The suit was filed yesterday. I'd quote from the suit, but guess what. The Connecticut Attorney General's site was down much of this afternoon. When it came back up, there was no information about the suit on the site.
So much for cyber-readiness. Kind of ironic that the Atty. Gen is suing one type of technology service provider for offering incomplete services, but they seem to have trouble keeping their own house in order.
OK, off the ad hominem attacks and back to the subject.
As I posted here a couple of months ago, the Texas suit is baseless. If Vonage is guilty of anything, it is clumsy wording in their contract and advertising. And despite the wishes of my college freshman year English teacher Mrs. O'Fallon, (I'm still standing, Mrs. O) you can't be held legally liable for awkward phrasing.
The Connecticut suit has less than no merit. No specific Vonage customer in Connecticut seems to have suffered the trying consequences of Vonage 911-connect failure like that customer in Houston may have.
And what about the fact that Connecticut filed the suit just about on the eve of today's announcement that Vonage will work with Verizon (the main local telco in Connecticut) to enable E911 solutions? Maybe Blumenthal and his folks didn't bother to check. Or, maybe he and his staffers were concerned that 911 solution progress is slower between Vonage and SBC (which covers part of Connecticut) than it is between Vonage and Verizon.
Do you think Connecticut's suit against Vonage has any merit? TalkBack and let us know.