Yes, more and more celebrities are entering the phone business. Here's why
NEW YORK (AP) — More and more celebrities are looking to attach their names to your phone. Or rather, wireless services that could power it.
From cosmetics to snacks and signature spirits, brands launched or co-owned by high-profile figures are just about everywhere you look today. But several big names are also venturing into the market for mobile virtual network operators — or MVNOs, an industry term for businesses that provide cell coverage by leasing infrastructure from bigger, more established carriers.
U.S. President Donald Trump's family was the most recent to join the list with the launch of Trump Mobile this week. Here's what to know.
On Monday, The Trump Organization (currently run by the president's sons Eric and Donald Jr.) unveiled Trump Mobile. The company says this new business will offer cell service, through an apparent licensing deal with 'all three major cellular carriers' in the U.S., and sell gold phones by August.
Trump Mobile marks the latest in a string of new Trump-branded offerings — which already span from golden sneakers to 'God Bless the USA' bibles — despite mounting ethical concerns that the president is profiting off his position and could distort public policy for personal gain.
'This raises a real question about a conflict of interest,' said Ben Bentzin, an associate professor of instruction at The University of Texas at Austin's McCombs School of Business. As the sitting president, Trump appoints leadership for the Federal Communications Commission — and the family's new phone venture exists under this regulatory authority.
All of this sets Trump Mobile apart from other big names that have recently ventured into the wireless business. Still, its launch arrives as a growing number of celebrities tap into this space.
Just last week, actors Jason Bateman, Sean Hayes and Will Arnett launched SmartLess Mobile, a name that mirrors the trio's 'SmartLess' podcast. Now live across the contiguous U.S. and Puerto Rico, SmartLess Mobile runs on T-Mobile's 5G Network.
Another wireless provider with ties to fame is Mint Mobile. While not launched by celebrities, Ryan Reynolds purchased an ownership stake in Mint in 2019. Mint's parent, the Ka'ena Corporation, was later acquired by T-Mobile in a deal worth up to $1.35 billion.
Beyond names of famous people, well-known brands that weren't traditionally in the phone business have also got in on the action over the years — particuarly outside of the U.S., Forrester Research senior analyst Octavio Garcia Granados notes. He points to Walmart's 'Bait' mobile plan in Mexico, for example, as well as Italian soccer club AC Milan launching its own mobile SIM cards for fans.
'The MVNO market is not new,' said Garcia Granados. 'What's new is the development on how it's consumed and the (ease) for brands to launch such plans.'
MVNOs have also emerged outside of high-profile brands or launch teams. Bentzin points to Straight Talk and Cricket — which are now owned by Verizon and AT&T, respectively. Still, traditional celebrity endorsements are common across the board. And in recent years, 'influencer marketing' has been 'the fastest growing area of advertising and promotion,' he notes.
For Trump Mobile, the pitch seems to be all about having an 'all-American service' while also tapping into the fan base of the president.
The company noted Monday that it chose to unveil Trump Mobile on the 10th anniversary of Trump launching 'his historic presidential campaign.' The name given to its flagship offer, The 47 Plan, and the $47.45 monthly fee make reference to the president's two terms. And a mock-up of the planned gold phone on the company's website shows Trump's 'Make America Great' slogan on the front screen.
According to the company, Trump Mobile's 47 Plan will include unlimited calls, texts and data through partner carriers, as well as free roadside assistance and telehealth services. It also says the new phone, called the 'T1 Phone,' will be available for $499 in August — but notes that this device won't be designed or made by Trump Mobile. Still, the company emphasized that these phones will be built in the U.S.
Experts have since shared skepticism about that being possible in two months. And beyond the future T1 Phone, others stress that a monthly cell service fee of just under $50 is pricey compared to other MVNO options today.
'It's not actual lower pricing. It's really trading on the fan base, if you will, of Trump,' said Bentzin.
SmartLess Mobile and Mint Mobile, of course, don't carry these same political ties. And the wireless plans offered by both boast less expensive offerings.
T-Mobile-owned Mint advertises 'flexible, buy-in-bulk' plans that range from $15 to $30 a month. Each option includes unlimited talk and text nationwide, but vary depending on plan length and data amount. Mint, founded in 2016, says it started 'because we'd had enough of the wireless industry's games' — and promises to help consumers avoid hidden fees.
SmartLess Mobile's plans also start at $15 a month. Depending on the data amount purchased, that base fee can rise to $30 — but all of its plans similarly offer unlimited talk and text using T-Mobile's network. When launching last week, SmartLess underlined that its goal is to help people stop paying for the data they don't use, noting that the majority of data used by consumers today happens over Wi-Fi.
'Seriously, if your phone bill knew how often you're on Wi-Fi, it would be embarrassed,' Hayes said in a statement for SmartLess Mobile's June 10 launch.
MVNOs have proven to be attractive acquisitions to big wireless carriers over the years. But whether or not the star factor promises significant demand has yet to be seen for the market's most recent entrants.
For the more established Mint Mobile, Reynolds' investment is a success story. The 25% stake that the actor reportedly owned in 2023, when the company announced that it would be acquired by T-Mobile, was estimated to give him a personal windfall of over $300 million in cash and stock. And since that deal closed, Reynolds has remained in his creative role for Mint and as the face of many campaigns — helping the brand continue to attract new customers.
It's no surprise that the potential of such business returns might attract other celebrities to make similar investments, Bentzin notes. Still, newer ventures are untested. And 'as the market becomes more crowded, it could be harder and harder to pick off individual consumers,' he added.
Beyond a high-profile name, quality of service and what consumers can afford is also critical.
'The competition battleground here is brand and price,' Bentzin said.
Still, if the marketing is right and product meets consumer needs, experts like Garcia Granados note that MVNOs can be a profitable business, for both the brands that start them and the telecommunications giants — like T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T — offering this 'wholesale' access to their infrastructure.
As a result, he said, such high-profile ventures become 'a catalyst for others to follow.'
______
AP Business Writer Bernard Condon contributed to this report from New York.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
250 Million Acre Public Land Sale Would Ruin The Off-Road Industry
Ford Performance at the 2025 King of the Hammers in Southern California's Johnson Valley. Since President Trump took office in January, the amount of threats to anything considered public—from a large slice of our nation's workforce to the media—have been unrelenting. Earlier this month, these threats took on a new form: potentially robbing the American people of millions of acres of public land. Unveiled on June 11th and revised on the 14th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill outlines over 250 million acres, to be slightly more exact, that could be offered up for sale to private business. As reported on by Jonathon Klein of Ride Apart, this could have a tremendous negative impact on not just our natural resources, but every corner of the outdoor industry as well. For those amongst us who enjoy off-road driving (or hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, cycling, climbing, etc.), the possibility of being cut-off from lands where we savor such activity is very real. Klein points out one particular swath of land in Southern California, Johnson Valley—home to one of the world's top off-road racing events, King of the Hammers—is on the chopping block, which would not only be detrimental to this event, but every single industry that's involved in it. Automakers, the aftermarket performance and racing industries, tourism, general outdoor equipment industries; the list goes on. Take that same scenario and multiply it by every other parcel of land that outdoor enthusiasts could lose access to, and the damage would be extensive. For a good overall picture of what's on the chopping block, The Wilderness Society has created a handy map. Competitors at the 2020 King of the Hammers in Johnson Valley, California. But why is all of this land potentially for sale? As stated in the bill itself, as much as $15 billion in revenue could come from expanded oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leasing. Other aims include increased housing production, domestic energy security and timber production, as well as, in the bill's summarized words, 'ensuring states and counties benefit from energy projects on federal lands.' The Wilderness Society has also outlined a handful of counter arguments. In its words, 'research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (US Forest Service) is actually suitable for housing.' It also explains that the federal government can revoke national monument status and that certain changes would negatively impact sovereign Tribal Nations. We can't forget the fact that increased energy production carries its own environmental hazards, too. It's all bad and very unnecessary. One thing that truly makes America great is its beautiful natural land that's here for all of us to savor, and this bill could cut off a very significant portion of it. And again, there's the immense adverse effect on every single outdoor industry, especially off-road driving and racing, and the massive amount of American companies that feed it. Contact your US senator and let them know how you feel. Especially if you live in Utah, which is Senator Mike Lee's turf. He's Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the creator of this bill—ironically, as many as 18 million acres of his state's land could potentially be up for sale. That's a lot of territory for off-road driving, hunting, shooting, fishing, climbing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, and so on.
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
AT&T to pay $177 million in data breach settlement affecting 109 million customers
A U.S. judge granted preliminary approval on Friday to a $177-million settlement that resolves lawsuits against AT&T T.N over breaches in 2024 that exposed personal information belonging to tens of millions of the telecom company's customers. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said in a ruling that the class-action settlement was fair and reasonable. The deal resolves claims over data breaches that AT&T announced in May and July last year. Depending on which breach is involved, AT&T has agreed to pay up to $2,500 or $5,000 to customers who suffered losses that are "fairly traceable" to the incidents. After payments are made for direct losses, the remaining funds will be distributed to customers whose personal information was accessed. In case you missed it: T-Mobile cyberattack settlement payments up to $25K delayed AT&T said it denied allegations it was "responsible for these criminal acts." "We have agreed to this settlement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation." AT&T said it expects the settlement will be approved by the end of 2025, with settlement payments to be issued early next year. One of the incidents resulted in the illegal downloading of about 109 million customer accounts at the U.S. wireless company. AT&T disclosed that its call logs were copied from its workspace on a Snowflake SNOW.N cloud platform covering about six months of customer call and text data from 2022 from nearly all its customers. In March 2024, AT&T said it was investigating a data set released on the "dark web" and said its preliminary analysis showed it affected approximately 7.6 million current account holders and 65.4 million former account holders. The company said the data set appeared to be from 2019 or earlier. The Federal Communications Commission is also investigating. In September, AT&T agreed to pay $13 million to resolve an FCC investigation over a data breach of a cloud vendor in January 2023 that impacted 8.9 million AT&T wireless customers. The FCC said the data exposed in 2023 covered customers from 2015 through 2017 that should have been deleted in 2017 or 2018. Reporting by Mike Scarcella and David Shepardson; Editing by Mark Porter, Leslie Adler and Rod Nickel
San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
