Verizon's Unlocking Policy Change Sparks Legal Battle

Patrick Roach, a resident of Kansas, found himself in a legal dispute with Verizon after purchasing a discounted iPhone from Straight Talk, a Verizon brand. Roach intended to use the phone on a different carrier's plan, US Mobile, after activating it on Verizon's network for a month.

Federal Rules and Verizon's Policy

Federal rules and Verizon's own policy at the time allowed for this, as Verizon is required to unlock phones 60 days after activation, a condition tied to its acquisition of 700 MHz spectrum and merger approvals.

However, Verizon changed its policy in April 2025, requiring 60 days of paid active service before unlocking phones. Roach, who had only paid for one month of service, found his phone locked after the 60-day period.

Legal Action and Court Ruling

Roach argued that Verizon's new policy was retroactively applied to his purchase, making the phone useless for his intended purpose. He sued Verizon in small claims court, alleging that the policy change violated federal regulations and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

The magistrate judge ruled in Roach's favor, stating that Verizon's policy change altered the nature of the device he purchased. The judge ordered Verizon to refund the cost of the phone and associated fees. Roach had initially rejected a $600 settlement offer from Verizon because it included a non-disclosure agreement, which he did not want to sign.

Broader Implications

Roach's case highlights the broader issue of carriers imposing additional requirements for unlocking phones, despite federal regulations mandating automatic unlocking after 60 days. Verizon has petitioned the FCC to eliminate the 60-day requirement altogether, arguing that longer locking periods are necessary to deter fraud. However, consumer advocacy groups have opposed this petition, arguing that it would make it harder for customers to switch carriers.

Roach's victory in small claims court may pave the way for other consumers who have faced similar issues with Verizon's unlocking policies. His case also sheds light on the challenges consumers face when carriers change policies retroactively, potentially leaving them with devices that no longer serve their intended purpose.