Verizon, once the largest wireless carrier in the United States, was taken to small claims court by a customer frustrated over the refusal to unlock his phone. What made this case notable was the legal challenge that arose after Verizon changed its unlocking policy retroactively, impacting the customer's planned use of the device.
Customer’s Unlocking Strategy Requires Verizon to Unlock the iPhone 16e
On February 28th, 2025, Patrick Roach purchased a discounted iPhone 16e through Verizon's prepaid service provider, Straight Talk, as a birthday gift for his wife. His plan was straightforward: he would pay for one month of service on Straight Talk, then transfer the iPhone 16e to the family’s U.S. Mobile plan. According to federal rules and Verizon's policy at the time, Roach believed he had the right to have the phone unlocked 60 days after activation.
Because Straight Talk is a prepaid service, Verizon’s policy stipulated unlocking phones 60 days after paid activation. For postpaid plans, the 60-day clock typically starts from purchase or activation date. After this interval, devices should be unlocked automatically.
Verizon’s Unlocking Rules Complicated by Spectrum Acquisition and Tracfone Deal
Verizon’s unlocking policies are distinct partly because of its acquisition of 700 MHz C Block spectrum in 2008, which came with open access mandates. These rules prevent Verizon from restricting customer devices on this spectrum, requiring the company to allow unlocked phones on their network. This trend toward unlocking also carried over through Verizon’s 2021 purchase of Tracfone, where Verizon agreed to reduce the unlocking window for Tracfone devices from 12 months to 60 days for purchases post-acquisition.
Despite these regulations, Verizon declined to unlock Roach’s iPhone 16e after his one month of prepaid service. Verizon argued that their updated policy required “60 days of paid active service” rather than 60 days from activation, a change implemented after Roach’s purchase.
Small Claims Court Rules in Favor of Customer Over Retroactive Policy Change
In response, Patrick Roach filed suit against Verizon in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry ruled that Verizon’s retroactive policy change was unfair and altered the nature of the device purchased. She wrote, “The fact that after plaintiff purchased the phone, the defendant changed the requirements for unlocking it so that plaintiff could go to a different network essentially altered the nature of the device purchased… With the change in defendant’s unlocking policy, the phone was essentially useless for the purpose plaintiff intended when he purchased it.”
Judge Henry emphasized that under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, proof of intent to defraud was not necessary to find Verizon in violation. The ruling ordered Verizon to refund the $410.40 Roach paid for the phone, along with court costs and service fees. After paying for a second month of service, Verizon unlocked the phone as planned, allowing Roach’s wife to use it on U.S. Mobile.
Aftermath and Ongoing Regulatory Issues
Prior to filing the lawsuit, Verizon offered Roach a $600 settlement with a confidentiality clause, which he declined in order to speak publicly about the case. Meanwhile, the FCC has yet to rule on Roach's FCC complaint alleging Verizon failed to comply with unlocking commitments following purchases from Straight Talk.
Last May, Verizon petitioned the FCC to eliminate the 60-day unlocking requirement altogether, prompting strong criticism from the public that viewed the move as an attempt to restrict customer freedom to switch networks. To date, the FCC has not overturned these regulations, and the unlocking obligations remain in place.
For now, Roach and other consumers can take some reassurance from this legal precedent affirming that carriers cannot change unlocking policies retroactively to the detriment of customers.
