ITEM 1A. Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the risks below, as well as all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, in evaluating our company and our business. Any of these risks could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and the trading price of our common stock.

Our cash flow and capital resources may not be sufficient for the future repurchase of our convertible notes.

On December 16, 2008, the holders of our convertible notes may require us to repurchase all or a portion of our outstanding notes at a price in cash equal to 100% of the principal amount of the notes, plus any accrued and unpaid interest. As of December 31, 2007, we had convertible notes outstanding in the aggregate principal amount of $253,460. We and our financial advisor have engaged in preliminary discussion with certain holders of our convertible notes. In those discussions, we have explored the possibility of a transaction in which holders would agree to forego the right to “put” the convertible notes in December 2008. As an inducement for holders to participate in such a transaction, we may agree to make certain modifications to the terms of the convertible notes adverse to us. (See “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources”) If we are unable to refinance or restructure our notes or obtain additional debt or equity capital, on favorable terms, or at all, we may face substantial liquidity challenges and we may be forced to reduce or delay capital or other material expenditures, including significantly reducing our marketing expenditures or disposing of material assets to meet our potential repurchase and other obligations. However, in light of the uncertainties in the credit markets, these alternatives may not be capable of being accomplished on a timely basis or on satisfactory terms, if at all. Although we are currently evaluating our options with respect to our convertible notes, the inability to repurchase, refinance or restructure our convertible notes could lead to our bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or liquidation. Because there can be no assurance that we will be successful in refinancing or restructuring the convertible notes or obtaining additional debt or equity capital, there is substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern, and our independent registered public accounting firm has included an explanatory paragraph highlighting this uncertainty in its report dated March 17, 2008. Our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to successfully repurchase, refinance or restructure our convertible notes.

We may require significant additional capital to pursue our growth strategy, but we may not be able to obtain additional financing on favorable terms or at all.

We intend to continue spending substantial amounts on marketing and product development in order to grow our business. Although we believe we will achieve profitability in the future, we may need to obtain additional financing to respond to new competitive pressures or to respond to opportunities to develop or acquire complementary businesses or technologies. Our significant losses to date may prevent us from obtaining additional funds on favorable terms or at all. For the year ended December 31, 2007, we recorded a net loss of

13

Table of Contents

PART I

$267,428, which includes $169,342 in royalty, interest and litigation settlement costs related to the Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and other patent settlement agreements. Because of these losses and our limited tangible assets, we do not fit traditional credit lending criteria, which, in particular, could make it difficult for us to obtain loans or to access the capital markets. In addition, the terms of our outstanding convertible notes provide for additional shares to be issued upon conversion if we sell shares of our common stock at a price that is less than the average trading price of our common stock over the 10-day period prior to any such sale, which might further limit our access to the capital markets.

We have incurred quarterly losses since our inception, and we may continue to incur losses in the future.

We have incurred losses since our inception, and we may continue to incur losses in the future. For the period from our inception through December 31, 2007, our accumulated deficit was $988,285. Our quarterly net losses generally increased each quarter from our inception through the quarter ended December 31, 2005. In 2006 and 2007, our quarterly net losses decreased each quarter with exceptions for the fourth quarter of 2006 and the third quarter of 2007, which included costs for patent litigation settlements.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2007, our net loss was $13,840. Initially, our net losses were driven principally by start-up costs and the costs of developing our technology. More recently, our net losses have been driven principally by marketing expense, which was $283,968 for the year ended December 31, 2007 and IP litigation settlements of $169,342 for the year ended December 31, 2007. In order to grow our revenue and customer base, we have chosen to spend a significant amount on marketing expenditures. In addition, we plan to continue to invest in research and development and customer care. We are pursuing a balance of growth and profitability in the near term to capitalize on the current expansion of the broadband and VoIP markets and enhance our future value. Although we believe we will achieve profitability in the future, we ultimately may not be successful and we may never achieve profitability. In the past, we projected that we would generate net income during future periods, but then generated a net loss. We intend to continue to spend a significant amount on marketing expenditures, and we may continue to generate net losses for the foreseeable future. In addition, we will always be required to incur some marketing expense in order to replace customers who terminate our service, or “churn.” Further, marketing expense is not the only factor that may cause us to incur net losses. For example, interest expense on our convertible notes of at least $12,673 annually may cause us to incur net losses unless the convertible notes are converted or repaid prior to the maturity date. This amount will increase if we pay interest in kind on these notes. As a result, even if we significantly reduce our marketing expense, we may continue to incur net losses.

A higher rate of customer terminations would negatively affect our business by reducing our revenue or requiring us to spend more money to grow our customer base.

Our rate of customer terminations, or average monthly customer churn, was 2.8% for the year ended December 31, 2007. During that period, 676,168 of our customers terminated. In the fourth quarter of 2007, our average monthly customer churn was 3.0%. Our churn rate could increase in the future if customers are not satisfied with our service. Other factors, including increased competition from other providers, also influence our churn rate.

Because of churn, we have to acquire new customers on an ongoing basis just to maintain our existing level of customers and revenues. As a result, marketing expense is an ongoing requirement of our business. If our churn rate increases, we will have to acquire even more new customers in order to maintain our existing revenues. We incur significant costs to acquire new customers, and those costs are an important factor in determining our net losses and achieving future profitability. Therefore, if we are unsuccessful in retaining customers or are required to spend significant amounts to acquire new customers beyond those budgeted, our revenue could decrease and our net losses could increase.

Table of Contents

We may not be able to maintain adequate customer care during periods of growth or in connection with our addition of new and complex Vonage-enabled devices, which could adversely affect our ability to grow and cause our financial results to be negatively affected.

Good customer care is important to acquiring and retaining customers. In the recent past, we have not been able to expand our customer care operations quickly enough to meet the needs of our increased customer base, and the quality of our customer care has suffered. For example, our customers may experience longer than acceptable hold times when they call us for assistance. In 2007, our average monthly customer churn rate increased to 2.8% from 2.5% in 2006. In the fourth quarter of 2007, our average monthly customer churn was 3.0%. We believe this increase was due in part to our inability to hire enough qualified customer care employees, which led to less than satisfactory customer care during these quarters. In the future, as we broaden our Vonage-enabled device offerings and our customers build increasingly complex home networking environments, we will face additional challenges in training our customer care staff. Historically, we have faced a high turnover rate among our customer care employees. We continue to hire and train customer care representatives at a rapid rate in order to meet the needs of our growing customer base. If we are unable to hire, train and retain sufficient personnel to provide adequate customer care, we may experience slower growth, increased costs and higher churn levels, which would cause our financial results to be negatively impacted.

Our ability to provide our service is dependent upon third-party facilities and equipment, the failure of which could cause delays or interruptions of our service, damage our reputation, cause us to lose customers and limit our growth.

Our success depends on our ability to provide quality and reliable service, which is in part dependent upon the proper functioning of facilities and equipment owned and operated by third parties and is, therefore, beyond our control. Unlike traditional wireline telephone service or wireless service, our service requires our customers to have an operative broadband Internet connection and an electrical power supply, which are provided by the customer’s Internet service provider and electric utility company, respectively, and not by us. The quality of some broadband Internet connections may be too poor for customers to use our services properly. In addition, if there is any interruption to a customer’s broadband Internet service or electrical power supply, that customer will be unable to make or receive calls, including emergency calls, using our service. We also outsource several of our network functions to third-party providers. For example, we outsource the maintenance of our regional data connection points, which are the facilities at which our network interconnects with the public switched telephone network. If our third-party service providers fail to maintain these facilities properly, or fail to respond quickly to problems, our customers may experience service interruptions. Our customers have experienced such interruptions in the past and will experience interruptions in the future. In addition, our new E-911 service is currently dependent upon several third-party providers. Cable companies’ ownership of Internet connections to our customers could enable them to detect and interfere with the completion of our customers’ calls. These companies may degrade the quality of, give low priority to or block entirely the information packets and other data we transmit over their lines. In addition, these companies may attempt to charge their customers more for using our services. This could also apply to phone companies that connect our customers to the Internet. Interruptions in service from these vendors could cause failures in our customers’ access to E-911 services. Interruptions in our service caused by third-party facilities have in the past caused and may in the future cause us to lose customers, or cause us to offer substantial customer credits, which could adversely affect our revenue and profitability. If interruptions adversely affect the perceived reliability of our service, we may have difficulty attracting new customers and our brand, reputation and growth will be negatively impacted.

We rely on third parties to provide a portion of our customer service representatives, initiate local number portability for our customers and provide aspects of our E-911 service. If these third parties do not provide our customers with reliable, high-quality service, our reputation will be harmed and we may lose customers.

We offer our customers support 24 hours a day, seven days a week through both our comprehensive online account management website and our toll free number. We rely on multiple third parties outside of the U.S. to provide a portion of the customer service representatives that respond to customer inquiries. These third-party providers generally represent us without identifying themselves as independent parties. We also maintain agreements with several E-911 providers and companies that initiate our local number portability, which allow new customers to retain their

15

Table of Contents

PART I

existing telephone numbers when subscribing to our services. If these parties do not provide reliable, high-quality service, our reputation and our business will be harmed. In addition, industry consolidation among providers of services to us may impact our ability to obtain these services or increase our expense for these services.

If we are unable to compete successfully, we could lose market share and revenue.

The telecommunications industry is highly competitive. We face intense competition from traditional telephone companies, wireless companies, cable companies and alternative voice communication providers. Our principal competitors are the traditional telephone service providers, including AT&T, Qwest Communications and Verizon Communications, and rural incumbents such as Citizens Communications, which provide telephone service based on the public switched telephone network. Some of these traditional providers also have added or are planning to add VoIP services to their existing telephone and broadband offerings. We also face, or expect to face, competition from cable companies, such as Cablevision, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, and Time Warner Cable (a division of Time Warner Inc.), which have added or are planning to add VoIP services to their existing cable television, voice and broadband offerings. Further, wireless providers, including AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless, offer services that some customers may prefer over wireline service. In the future, as wireless companies offer more minutes at lower prices, their services may become more attractive to customers as a replacement for wireline service. Some of these providers may be developing a dual mode phone that will be able to use VoIP where broadband access is available and cellular phone service elsewhere, which will pose additional competition to our offerings.

Most traditional wireline and wireless telephone service providers and cable companies are substantially larger and better capitalized than we are and have the advantage of a large existing customer base. Because most of our target customers are already purchasing communications services from one or more of these providers, our success is dependent upon our ability to attract target customers, who are mainstream consumers, away from their existing providers. In addition, these competitors could focus their substantial financial resources to develop competing technology that may be more attractive to potential customers than what we offer. Our competitors’ financial resources may allow them to offer services at prices below cost or even for free in order to maintain and gain market share or otherwise improve their competitive positions. Our competitors also could use their greater financial resources to offer VoIP services with more attractive service packages that include on-site installation and more robust customer service. In addition, because of the other services our competitors provide, they may choose to offer VoIP services as part of a bundle that includes other products, such as video, high speed Internet access and wireless telephone service, which we do not offer. This bundle may enable our competitors to offer VoIP service at prices with which we may not be able to compete or to offer functionality that integrates VoIP service with their other offerings, both of which may be more desirable to consumers. Any of these competitive factors could make it more difficult for us to attract and retain customers, cause us to lower our prices in order to compete and reduce our market share and revenues.

We also compete against established alternative voice communication providers, such as Skype (a service of eBay Inc.), and face competition from other large, well-capitalized Internet companies, such as Google Inc., Microsoft Corporation and Yahoo! Inc., which have recently launched or plan to launch VoIP-enabled instant messaging services. In addition, we compete with independent VoIP service providers. Some of these service providers may choose to sacrifice revenue in order to gain market share and have offered their services at lower prices or for free. In order to compete with such service providers, we may have to significantly reduce our prices, which would delay or prevent our profitability.

Decreasing telecommunications prices may cause us to lower our prices to remain competitive, which could delay or prevent our future profitability.

Currently, our prices are lower than those of many of our competitors for comparable services. However, domestic and international telecommunications prices have decreased significantly over the last few years, and we anticipate that prices will continue to decrease. Users who select our service offerings to take advantage of our prices may switch to another service provider as the

Table of Contents

difference between prices diminishes or disappears, and we may be unable to use our price as a distinguishing feature to attract new customers in the future. Such competition or continued price decreases may require us to lower our prices to remain competitive, may result in reduced revenue, a loss of customers or a decrease in our subscriber line growth and may delay or prevent our future profitability.

If VoIP technology fails to gain acceptance among mainstream consumers, our ability to grow our business will be limited.

The market for VoIP service is continuing to rapidly evolve. We currently generate most of our revenue from the sale of VoIP services and related products to residential customers. Revenue generated from sales to residential customers will continue to account for most of our revenue for the foreseeable future. We believe that a significant portion of our initial residential customers are early adopters of VoIP technology. However, in order for our business to continue to grow and to become profitable, VoIP technology must gain acceptance among mainstream consumers, who tend to be less technically knowledgeable and more resistant to new technology services. Because potential VoIP customers need to connect additional hardware not required for the use of traditional telephone service, mainstream consumers may be reluctant to use our service. We have shifted our focus of advertising to reach out to the mainstream consumer and increase brand awareness, primarily with new television commercials. However, if mainstream consumers choose not to adopt our technology, our ability to grow our business will be limited.

Certain aspects of our service are not the same as traditional telephone service, which may limit the acceptance of our services by mainstream consumers and our potential for growth.

Certain aspects of our service are not the same as traditional telephone service. Our continued growth is dependent on the adoption of our services by mainstream customers, so these differences are becoming increasingly important. For example:

If customers do not accept the differences between our service and traditional telephone service, they may choose to remain with their current telephone service provider or may choose to return to service provided by traditional telephone companies.

We have identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting which was remediated as of December 31, 2007 and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future that may cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements of our financial statements.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

Our management, after discussions with our audit committee and our independent registered public accounting firm, BDO Seidman LLP, determined that it was necessary to restate our consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2007 and September 30, 2007 in order to correct the amount of stock-based compensation expense recorded by us for those periods. In light of the restatement, we believe that a material weakness existed in the design of our

17

Table of Contents

PART I

internal control procedures relating to recording stock-based compensation expense, which was remediated as of December 31, 2007.

If we fail to maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, we may not be able to conclude in the future that we have effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Moreover, effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent fraud. As a result, our failure to maintain effective internal controls could result in the loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could harm the market value of our common stock. Any failure to maintain effective internal controls also could impair our ability to manage our business and harm our financial results.

Our emergency and new E-911 calling services are different from those offered by traditional wireline telephone companies and may expose us to significant liability.

Both our emergency calling service and our new E-911 calling service are different, in significant respects, from the emergency calling services offered by traditional wireline telephone companies. In each case, those differences may cause significant delays, or even failures, in callers’ receipt of the emergency assistance they need.

Traditional wireline telephone companies route emergency calls over a dedicated infrastructure directly to an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP in the caller’s area. Generally, the dispatcher automatically receives the caller’s phone number and actual location information. While our new E-911 service being deployed in the United States is designed to route calls in a fashion similar to traditional wireline services, our new E-911 capabilities are not yet available in all locations. In addition, the only location information that our E-911 service can transmit to a dispatcher at a PSAP is the information that our customers have registered with us. A customer’s registered location may be different from the customer’s actual location at the time of the call because customers can use their Vonage-enabled devices to make calls almost anywhere a broadband connection is available.

We are currently deploying E-911 service that is comparable to the emergency calling services provided to customers of traditional wireline telephone companies in the same area. For those customers located in an E-911 area, emergency calls are routed, subject to the limitations discussed below, directly to an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP in the area of the customer’s registered location. The dispatcher will have automatic access to the customer’s telephone number and registered location information. However, if a customer places an emergency call using the customer’s Vonage-enabled device in a location different from the one registered with us, the emergency call will be routed to a PSAP in the customer’s registered location, not the customer’s actual location at the time of the call. Every time a customer moves his or her Vonage-enabled device to a new location, the customer’s registered location information must be updated and verified. Until that takes place, the customer will have to verbally advise the emergency dispatcher of his or her actual location at the time of the call and wait for the call to be transferred, if possible, to the appropriate local emergency response center before emergency assistance can be dispatched.

In some cases, even under our new 911 service, emergency calls may be routed to a PSAP in the area of the customer’s registered location, but such PSAP may not be capable of receiving our transmission of the caller’s registered location information and, in some cases, the caller’s phone number. Where the emergency call center is unable to process the information, the caller is provided a service that is similar to the basic 911 services offered to some wireline telephone customers. In these instances, the emergency caller may be required to verbally advise the operator of their location at the time of the call and, in some cases, a call back number so that the call can be handled or forwarded to an appropriate emergency dispatcher.

The emergency calls of customers located in areas where we are currently unable to provide either E-911 or the basic 911 described above are supported by a national call center that is run by a third-party provider and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In these cases, a caller must provide the operator with his or her physical location and call back number. The operator will then coordinate connecting the caller to the appropriate PSAP or emergency services provider. Our E-911 service does not support the calls of our WiFi phone, SoftPhone users and V-phone. The emergency calls of our WiFi phone, SoftPhone users and V-phone are supported by the national call center.

If one of our customers experiences a broadband or power outage, or if a network failure were

Table of Contents

to occur, the customer will not be able to reach an emergency services provider.

Delays our customers encounter when making emergency services calls and any inability of the answering point to automatically recognize the caller’s location or telephone number can have devastating consequences. Customers have attempted, and may in the future attempt, to hold us responsible for any loss, damage, personal injury or death suffered as a result. Some traditional phone companies also may be unable to provide the precise location or the caller’s telephone number when their customers place emergency calls. However, traditional phone companies are covered by legislation exempting them from liability for failures of emergency calling services and we are not. This liability could be significant. In addition, we have lost, and may in the future lose, existing and prospective customers because of the limitations inherent in our emergency calling services. Any of these factors could cause us to lose revenues, incur greater expenses or cause our reputation or financial results to suffer.

If we fail to comply with FCC regulations requiring us to provide E-911 emergency calling services, we may be subject to fines or penalties, which could include disconnection of our service for certain customers or prohibitions on marketing of our services and accepting new customers in certain areas.

The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, released an order on June 3, 2005 requiring us to notify our customers of any differences between our emergency calling services and those available through traditional telephone providers and obtain affirmative acknowledgments from our customers of those notifications. The rules also required us to offer by November 28, 2005 enhanced emergency calling services, or E-911, to all of our customers located in areas where E-911 service is available from their traditional wireline telephone company. E-911 service allows emergency calls from our customers to be routed directly to an emergency dispatcher in a customer’s registered location and gives the dispatcher automatic access to the customer’s telephone number and registered location information.

We have notified our customers of the differences between our emergency calling services and those available through traditional telephony providers and have received affirmative acknowledgement from substantially all of our customers. We also took steps to comply with the FCC’s order by the November 28, 2005 deadline, but we are not currently in full compliance and do not expect to be in full compliance in the short term unless we are granted a waiver of the requirements by the FCC. As of December 31, 2007, we were not providing E-911 service to approximately 1.5% of our U.S. subscriber lines.

The consequences of failure to comply fully with the FCC’s order currently are unclear. On November 7, 2005, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued a public notice stating that it would not require disconnection of existing customers to whom E-911 service cannot be provided by November 28, 2005, but it also stated that it expected VoIP providers to stop marketing and accepting new subscribers in areas where they cannot provide E-911 service after November 28, 2005. It is not clear whether the FCC will enforce this restriction or how it would do so. On November 28, 2005, we filed a petition for extension of time and limited waiver of certain of the enhanced emergency service requirements, including the limitations on marketing and accepting new customers. We are continuing to market our services and accept new customers in areas in which we do not provide E-911 service. The FCC has not acted on our petition, and we cannot predict whether the FCC will grant our petition or provide other relief. Should we be unable to obtain an extension of time to implement the requirements of the order, we may be subject to enforcement action by the FCC that could include monetary forfeitures, cease and desist orders and other penalties. We also may be required to stop serving customers to whom we cannot provide the E-911 service required by the FCC’s rules and to stop marketing our services and accepting new customers in areas in which we cannot provide the E-911 service. Any of these actions could significantly harm our business.

Taxes and 911-related fees will increase our customers’ cost of using our services and could result in penalties being imposed on us.

Until 2006, we did not collect or remit state or municipal taxes, such as sales, excise, and ad valorem taxes, fees or surcharges on the charges to our customers for our services, except that we have historically complied with the collection of New Jersey State sales tax. We have received inquiries or demands from a number of state and municipal taxing agencies seeking payment of taxes, fees or surcharges that are applied to or collected from customers of providers of traditional public switched telephone network services. Although we have consistently maintained that these taxes, fees or surcharges do not apply to our service for a variety of reasons depending on the statute or rule

19

Table of Contents

PART I

that establishes such obligations, a number of states have changed their statutes as part of streamlined sales tax initiatives and we are now collecting and remitting sales taxes in those states. The collection of these taxes, fees or surcharges will have the effect of decreasing any price advantage we may have.

In addition, a few states have enacted statutes or administrative rules that address how VoIP providers should contribute to support public safety agencies, and in those states we began to remit fees to the appropriate state agencies. We have also contacted authorities in each of the other states to discuss how we can financially contribute to the 911 system. State and local governments may also assess fees to pay for emergency services in a customer’s community. As of December 31, 2007, we are collecting and remitting 911 related fees to the appropriate authorities in twenty-six states. For most of our customers, this fee is between $0.50 to $1.50 per month, and as high as $3.00 for a limited number of customers, depending on their location. We also began charging customers an Emergency 911 Cost Recovery fee of $0.99 per month, effective March 7, 2006. This fee is designed to cover some of our costs associated with complying with E-911 regulation and operating our national 911 emergency call center. The collection of these 911 fees will also have the effect of decreasing any price advantage we may have.

We have established a U.S. tax reserve of $5,803 as of December 31, 2007 to account for the claims by some states that we should have collected and remitted sales taxes and 911 fees in the past. If our ultimate liability exceeds that amount, it could result in significant charges to our earnings.

In addition, in June 2006 the FCC in its Order concluded that VoIP providers must begin contributing to the Federal Universal Service Fund, or USF, based on a safe harbor of 64.9%. In October 2006, we began recouping our contributions through a customer surcharge, which was $1.84 per line in the fourth quarter of 2007. Vonage has filed an appeal of the FCC’s USF Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On June 1, 2007, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the FCC’s USF Order which required interconnected VoIP providers to make double USF payments in violation of the carrier’s carrier rule. However, the Court failed to decide how interconnected VoIP providers would recover the USF payments made to underlying carriers. Vonage continues to pursue actions to recover all methods of payments that were made from the FCC’s violation of double payments and the carrier’s carrier rule.

Flaws in our technology and systems could cause delays or interruptions of service, damage our reputation, cause us to lose customers and limit our growth.

Although we have designed our service network to reduce the possibility of disruptions or other outages, our service may be disrupted by problems with our technology and systems, such as malfunctions in our software or other facilities and overloading of our network. Our customers have experienced interruptions in the past and may experience interruptions in the future as a result of these types of problems. Interruptions have in the past and may in the future cause us to lose customers and offer substantial customer credits, which could adversely affect our revenue and profitability. During 2007, we had multiple outages that affected groups of customers at various times, some of which affected large groups of customers for several hours. In addition, because our systems and our customers’ ability to use our services are Internet-dependent, our services may be subject to “hacker attacks” from the Internet, which could have a significant impact on our systems and services. If service interruptions adversely affect the perceived reliability of our service, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining customers and our brand reputation and growth may suffer.

Future disruptive new technologies could have a negative effect on our businesses.

VoIP technology, which our business is based upon, did not exist and was not commercially viable until relatively recently. VoIP technology is having a disruptive effect on traditional telephone companies, whose businesses are based on other technologies. We also are subject to the risk of future disruptive technologies. If new technologies develop that are able to deliver competing voice services at lower prices, better or more conveniently, it could have a material adverse effect on us.

Table of Contents

The success of our business relies on customers’ continued and unimpeded access to broadband service. Providers of broadband services may be able to block our services or charge their customers more for also using our services, which could adversely affect our revenue and growth.

Our customers must have broadband access to the Internet in order to use our service. Some providers of broadband access may take measures that affect their customers’ ability to use our service, such as degrading the quality of the data packets we transmit over their lines, giving those packets low priority, giving other packets higher priority than ours, blocking our packets entirely or attempting to charge their customers more for also using our services.

It is not clear whether suppliers of broadband Internet access have a legal obligation to allow their customers to access and use our service without interference. As a result of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the FCC, providers of broadband services are subject to relatively light regulation by the FCC. Consequently, federal and state regulators might not prohibit broadband providers from limiting their customers’ access to VoIP or otherwise discriminating against VoIP providers. Interference with our service or higher charges for also using our service could cause us to lose existing customers, impair our ability to attract new customers and harm our revenue and growth.

These problems could also arise in international markets. For example, in 2006 a Canadian cable provider began offering an optional Cdn$10 per month “quality of service premium” to customers who use third-party VoIP services over its facilities. However, customers who purchase VoIP services directly from this cable provider are not required to pay this additional fee.

Our service requires an operative broadband connection, and if the adoption of broadband does not progress as expected, the market for our services will not grow and we may not be able to grow our business and increase our revenue.

Use of our service requires that the user be a subscriber to an existing broadband Internet service, most typically provided through a cable or digital subscriber line, or DSL, connection. Although the number of broadband subscribers worldwide has grown significantly over the last five years, this service has not yet been adopted by a majority of consumers. If the adoption of broadband services does not continue to grow, the market for our services may not grow. As a result, we may not be able to increase our revenue and become profitable.

We are and in the future may be subject to damaging and disruptive intellectual property litigation that could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as the continued viability of our company.

We were named as a defendant in several suits that relate to patent infringement and recently entered into agreements to settle certain of the suits. See “Item 3. – Legal Proceedings – Patent Litigation.” In addition, we have been subject to other infringement claims in the past and, given the rapid technological change in our industry and our continual development of new products and services, we may be subject to infringement claims in the future. We may be unaware of filed patent applications and issued patents that could include claims covering our products and services. Intellectual property litigation if determined against us could:

Parties making claims of infringement may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief that could effectively block our ability to provide our services and could cause us to pay substantial royalties, licensing fees or damages. The defense of any lawsuit could result in time-consuming and expensive litigation, regardless of the merits of such claims.

21

Table of Contents

PART I

Because much of our potential success and value lies in our use of internally developed systems and software, if we fail to protect them, it could negatively affect us.

Our ability to compete effectively is dependent in large part upon the maintenance and protection of systems and software that we have developed internally based on open standards. While we have several pending patent applications, acquired three patents from Digital Packet Licensing, Inc. and settled the patent litigations with Verizon, Sprint, AT&T and others that enable VoIP technology, we cannot patent much of the technology that is important to our business. To date, we have relied on copyright, trademark and trade secret laws, as well as confidentiality procedures and licensing arrangements, to establish and protect our rights to this technology. We typically enter into confidentiality or license agreements with our employees, consultants, customers and vendors in an effort to control access to and distribution of technology, software, documentation and other information. Despite these precautions, it may be possible for a third party to copy or otherwise obtain and use this technology without authorization. Policing unauthorized use of this technology is difficult. The steps we take may not prevent misappropriation of the technology we rely on. In addition, effective protection may be unavailable or limited in some jurisdictions outside the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Litigation may be necessary in the future to enforce or protect our rights or to determine the validity and scope of the rights of others. That litigation could cause us to incur substantial costs and divert resources away from our daily business, which in turn could materially adversely affect our business.

We are currently subject to securities class action litigations, the unfavorable outcome of which might have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

A number of putative class action lawsuits have been filed against us, certain of our officers and directors, and the lead underwriters of our initial public offering, alleging, among other things, securities laws violations. On January 9, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all complaints to the District of New Jersey. On November 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated Amended Complaint, which generally alleges: (i) we made misstatements regarding subscriber line growth and average monthly churn rate; (ii) we failed to disclose problems with facsimile transmissions and a pending fax litigation case; (iii) we failed to disclose all patent infringement claims and issues; and (iv) that the Directed Share Program suffered from various infirmities. On January 18, 2008, we filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion. Pursuant to the scheduling order in effect, our Reply Brief is due by April 2, 2008. We cannot, however, determine the outcome or resolution of these claims or the timing for their resolution. In addition to the expense and burden incurred in defending this litigation and any damages that we may suffer, our management’s efforts and attention may be diverted from the ordinary business operations in order to address these claims. If the final resolution of this litigation is unfavorable to us, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be materially adversely affected if our existing insurance coverage is unavailable or inadequate to resolve the matter.

We may incur significant costs and harm to our reputation from lawsuits and regulatory inquiries related to our business practices, which may also divert the attention of our management from other aspects of our business.

We have been named in several purported class actions in California, New Jersey, and Washington alleging a wide variety of deficiencies with respect to our business practices, marketing disclosures, email marketing and quality issues for both phone and fax service. We have also been subject to periodic regulatory inquiries regarding our business practices. Class action litigation and regulatory inquiries of these types are often expensive and time consuming and their outcome may be uncertain.

Any such claims or regulatory inquiries, whether successful or not, could require us to devote significant amounts of monetary or human resources to defend ourselves and could harm our reputation. We may need to spend significant amounts on our legal defense, senior management may be required to divert their attention from other portions of our business, new product launches may be deferred or canceled as a result of any proceedings, and we may be required to make changes to our present and planned products or services. If, as a result of any proceedings, a judgment is rendered

Table of Contents

or a decree is entered against us, it may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and harm our reputation.

Our credit card processors have the ability to take significant holdbacks or increase existing reserves in certain circumstances. The initiation of such holdbacks or increased reserves likely would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity.

Our credit card processors have established reserves to cover any exposure that they may have as we collect revenue in advance of providing services to our customers, which is a customary practice for companies that bill their customers in advance of providing services. As such, we have provided our credit card processors with cash reserves of $21,674 and a cash collateralized letter of credit for $10,000 as of December 31, 2007. Under our credit card processing agreements with our Visa/MasterCard, American Express and Discover credit card processors, the credit card processor has the right, in certain circumstances, including adverse events affecting our business, to impose a holdback of our advanced payments purchased using a Visa/MasterCard, American Express or Discover credit card, as applicable, or demand additional reserves or other security. If circumstances were to occur that would allow any of these processors to initiate a holdback or considerably increase reserves, such as our inability to repurchase, refinance or restructure our convertible notes, the negative impact on our liquidity likely would be significant. In addition, our Visa/MasterCard credit card processing agreement may be terminated by the credit card processor at its discretion if we are deemed to be financially insecure. As a significant portion of payments to us are made through Visa and MasterCard credit cards, if the credit card processor does not assist in transitioning our business to another credit card processor, the negative impact on our liquidity likely would be significant.

We are dependent on a small number of individuals, and if we lose key personnel upon whom we are dependent, our business will be adversely affected.

Many of the key responsibilities of our business have been assigned to a relatively small number of individuals. Our future success depends to a considerable degree on the vision, skills, experience and effort of our senior management, including Jeffrey Citron, our founder, Chairman, Chief Strategist and interim Chief Executive Officer, John Rego, our Chief Financial Officer, Louis Mamakos, our Chief Technology Officer, and Jamie Haenggi, our Chief Marketing Officer. We may add additional senior personnel in the future.

If we lose the services of any of our key employees, or if members of our management team do not work well together, it would have an adverse effect on our business. In particular, Mr. Citron has been the driving force in the development of our business to date, and he will continue to be in charge of our overall strategy and be closely involved with our technology and other aspects of our business. However, Mr. Citron could decide to resign as our Chairman, Chief Strategist and interim Chief Executive Officer, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Demand for information technology and engineering personnel is high, and the media impact from our patent infringement litigation combined with our prior reduction in force and need to refinance our convertible notes have negatively affected our ability to attract and retain such personnel. If we fail to hire and train these additional information technology and engineering personnel, our business, operating results and financial position could be materially adversely affected.

The media impact from our patent infringement litigation, our prior reductions in force and the need to refinance our convertible notes have negatively affected our ability to attract and retain personnel in our information technology and engineering departments. As a result, there is significant strain being placed on our employees and, consequently, our operations. If we are not able to hire, train and retain necessary personnel, specifically employees with expertise in information technology and engineering, we may have to make increasing demands on our already stressed resources. The quality of our services could suffer, which could negatively affect our brand, operating results and financial position.

Regulation of VoIP services is developing and therefore uncertain, and future legislative, regulatory or judicial actions could adversely affect our business and expose us to liability.

Our business has developed in an environment largely free from government regulation. However, the United States and other countries have begun to assert regulatory authority over VoIP and are continuing to evaluate how VoIP will be regulated in the future. Both the application of existing rules to us and our competitors and the effects of future regulatory developments are uncertain.

23

Table of Contents

PART I

Future legislative, judicial or other regulatory actions could have a negative effect on our business. If we become subject to the rules and regulations applicable to telecommunications providers in individual states, we may incur significant litigation and compliance costs, and we may have to restructure our service offerings, exit certain markets or raise the price of our services, any of which could cause our services to be less attractive to customers. In addition, future regulatory developments could increase our cost of doing business and limit our growth.

Our international operations are also subject to regulatory risks, including the risk that regulations in some jurisdictions will prohibit us from providing our services cost-effectively or at all, which could limit our growth. Currently, there are several countries where regulations prohibit us from offering service. In addition, because customers can use our services almost anywhere that a broadband Internet connection is available, including countries where providing VoIP services is illegal, the governments of those countries may attempt to assert jurisdiction over us, which could expose us to significant liability and regulation.

The past background of our founder, Chairman, Chief Strategist and interim Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey A. Citron, may adversely affect our ability to enter into business relationships and may have other adverse effects on our business.

Prior to joining Vonage, Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities Corporation and Datek Online Holdings Corp., including as an employee of, and consultant for, Datek Securities and, later, as one of the principal executive officers and largest stockholders of Datek Online. Datek Online, which was formed in early 1998 following a reorganization of the Datek business, was a large online brokerage firm. Datek Securities was a registered broker-dealer that engaged in a number of businesses, including proprietary trading and order execution services. During a portion of the time Mr. Citron was associated with Datek Securities, the SEC alleged that Datek Securities, Mr. Citron and other individuals participated in an extensive fraudulent scheme involving improper use of the Nasdaq Stock Market’s Small Order Execution System, or SOES. Datek Securities (through its successor iCapital Markets LLC), Mr. Citron and other individuals entered into settlements with the SEC in 2002 and 2003, which resulted in extensive fines, bans from future association with securities brokers or dealers and enjoinments against future violations of certain U.S. securities laws. The NASD previously had imposed disciplinary action against Datek Securities, Mr. Citron and other individuals in connection with alleged violations of the rules and regulations regarding the SOES.

There is a risk that some third parties will not do business with us, that some prospective investors will not purchase our securities or that some customers may be wary of signing up for service with us as a result of allegations against Mr. Citron and his past SEC and NASD settlements. We believe that some financial institutions and accounting firms have declined to enter into business relationships with us in the past, at least in part because of these matters. Other institutions and potential business associates may not be able to do business with us because of internal policies that restrict associations with individuals who have entered into SEC and NASD settlements. While we believe that these matters have not had a material impact on our business, they may have a greater impact on us while we are a public company, including by adversely affecting our ability to enter into commercial relationships with third parties that we need to effectively and competitively grow our business. Further, should Mr. Citron in the future be accused of, or be shown to have engaged in, additional improper or illegal activities, the impact of those accusations or the potential penalties from such activities could be exacerbated because of the matters discussed above. If any of these risks were to be realized, there could be a material adverse effect on our business or the market price of our common stock.

As a result of being a public company, we incur increased costs that may place a strain on our resources or divert our management’s attention from other business concerns.

As a public company, we incur additional legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Exchange Act requires us to file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition, which requires us to incur legal and accounting expenses. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires us to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting,

Table of Contents

significant resources and management oversight are required. The corporate governance rules and regulations of the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange have increased our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time consuming and costly. These requirements may place a strain on our systems and resources and may divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Jeffrey A. Citron, our founder, Chairman, Chief Strategist, interim Chief Executive Office and principal stockholder, exerts significant influence over us.

As of December 31, 2007, Mr. Citron beneficially owned approximately 34% of our outstanding common stock, including outstanding securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock held by Mr. Citron. As a result, Mr. Citron is able to exert significant influence over all matters presented to our stockholders for approval, including election and removal of our directors and change of control transactions. In addition, as our Chairman, Chief Strategist and interim Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Citron has and will continue to have significant influence over our strategy, technology and other matters. Mr. Citron’s interests may not always coincide with the interests of other holders of our common stock.

We may be unable to fully realize the benefits of our net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards if an ownership change occurs.

If we were to experience a “change in ownership” under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 382”), the NOL carryforward limitations under Section 382 would impose an annual limit on the amount of the future taxable income that may be offset by our NOL generated prior to the change in ownership. If a change in ownership were to occur, we may be unable to use a significant portion of our NOL to offset future taxable income. In general, a change in ownership occurs when, as of any testing date, there has been a cumulative change in the stock ownership of the corporation held by 5% stockholders of more than 50 percentage points over an applicable three-year period. For these purposes, a 5% stockholder is generally any person or group of persons that at any time during an applicable three-year period has owned 5% or more of our outstanding common stock. In addition, persons who own less than 5% of the outstanding common stock are grouped together as one or more “public group” 5% stockholders. Under Section 382, stock ownership would be determined under complex attribution rules and generally includes shares held directly, indirectly (though intervening entities) and constructively (by certain related parties and certain unrelated parties acting as a group).

The market price of our common stock has been and may continue to be volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

Securities markets experience significant price and volume fluctuations. This market volatility, as well as general economic conditions, could cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate substantially. The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Many factors that are beyond our control may significantly affect the market price of our shares. These factors include:

If any of these factors causes the price of our common stock to fall, investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above their respective purchase prices.

Our stock price may decline due to sales of shares by our other stockholders.

Sales of substantial amounts of our common stock, or the perception that these sales may occur, may adversely affect the price of our common stock and impede our ability to raise capital through the issuance of equity securities in the future. There were 156,019,924 shares of our common stock outstanding as of February 29, 2008. All shares sold in our initial public offering are freely transferable without restriction or further registration under the Securities Act, subject to restrictions that may be applicable to our “affiliates,” as that term is defined in Rule 144 under the Securities Act. Substantially all of the shares held by our pre-IPO stockholders are subject to registration rights, and these rights may be exercised. You should expect a significant number of these shares to be sold,

25

Table of Contents

PART I

which may further decrease the price of shares of our common stock. Shares issuable upon exercise of our options and warrants and upon conversion of our convertible notes also may be sold in the market in the future.

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and we may not be able to maintain that listing, which may make it more difficult for you to sell your shares.

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The New York Stock Exchange has several quantitative and qualitative requirements companies must comply with to maintain this listing, including a $1.00 minimum closing price. While we believe we are currently in compliance with all New York Stock Exchange requirements, we may not maintain compliance in the future. If we are delisted from the New York Stock Exchange, our common stock may be considered a penny stock under the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and would therefore be subject to rules that impose additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers who sell our securities. The additional burdens imposed upon broker-dealers may discourage broker-dealers from effecting transactions in our common stock, which could severely limit market liquidity of the common stock and your ability to sell our securities in the secondary market. This lack of liquidity would also make it more difficult for us to raise capital in the future.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and convertible notes and the terms of certain settlement agreements to which we are a party contain provisions that could delay or discourage a takeover attempt, which could prevent the completion of a transaction in which our stockholders could receive a substantial premium over the then-current market price for their shares.

Certain provisions of our restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may make it more difficult for, or have the effect of discouraging, a third party from acquiring control of us or changing our board of directors and management. These provisions:

In addition, our convertible notes provide that upon a change of control, holders may require us to redeem all or a portion of their convertible notes at a price equal to the principal amount of notes to be redeemed, plus any accrued and unpaid interest and potentially a premium.

Further, we were named as a defendant in several suits that relate to patent infringement and recently entered into agreements to settle certain of the suits. See “Item 3. – Legal Proceedings – Patent Litigation.” Certain terms of those agreements, including licenses and covenants not to sue, will be restricted upon a change of control, which may discourage certain potential purchasers from acquiring us.

Such provisions could have the effect of depriving stockholders of an opportunity to sell their shares at a premium over prevailing market prices. Any delay or prevention of, or significant payments required to be made upon, a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors or management could deter potential acquirers or prevent the completion of a transaction in which our stockholders could receive a substantial premium over the then-current market price for their shares.

Table of Contents