Verizon Refused To Unlock Man's iPhone, So He Sued the Carrier and Won (arstechnica.com) 46
A Kansas man who sued Verizon in small claims court after the carrier refused to unlock his iPhone has won his case, scoring a small but meaningful victory against a company that retroactively applied a policy change to deny his unlock request.
Patrick Roach bought a discounted iPhone 16e from Verizon's Straight Talk brand in February 2025, intending to pay for one month of service before switching the device to US Mobile. Under FCC rules dating back to a 2019 waiver, Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation on its network. Verizon refused to unlock the phone, citing a new policy implemented on April 1, 2025 requiring "60 days of paid active service."
Roach had purchased his device over a month before that policy took effect. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry ruled in October 2025 that applying the changed terms to Roach's earlier purchase violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The court ordered Verizon to refund Roach's $410.40 purchase price plus court costs. Roach had previously rejected a $600 settlement offer because it would have required him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. He estimated spending about 20 hours on the lawsuit but said "it wasn't about" the money.
Patrick Roach bought a discounted iPhone 16e from Verizon's Straight Talk brand in February 2025, intending to pay for one month of service before switching the device to US Mobile. Under FCC rules dating back to a 2019 waiver, Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation on its network. Verizon refused to unlock the phone, citing a new policy implemented on April 1, 2025 requiring "60 days of paid active service."
Roach had purchased his device over a month before that policy took effect. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry ruled in October 2025 that applying the changed terms to Roach's earlier purchase violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The court ordered Verizon to refund Roach's $410.40 purchase price plus court costs. Roach had previously rejected a $600 settlement offer because it would have required him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. He estimated spending about 20 hours on the lawsuit but said "it wasn't about" the money.
Verizon was dumb (Score:2)
It should've either applied the old policy or offered a complete refund, without any NDA or other strings attached.
Re:Verizon was dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Verizon was dumb (Score:4, Informative)
Very few people will benefit, given it's limited to whoever bought an iPhone in a specific month before the policy change took effect. Everyone before that had 2 months of service, everyone after it can't sue.
Re:Verizon was dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the ruling is based on Kansas law so is not useful outside of Kansas, and even within Kansas, "precedent" is only applicable to this one court.
Re: (Score:2)
Even simpler solution (Score:5, Insightful)
SIM-locking should be banned, period. Works well in many other countries. There is no valid reason to SIM-lock a phone, even for 60 days or 60 days of active paid service. It's a net loss to society as a whole. Even though I understand it can benefit Verizon in one case, it also prevented someone else to switch to Verizon from a competitor.
Re:Even simpler solution (Score:4, Informative)
I guess it depends. Is the phone "discounted" if you do this? For a while, committing to a yearly plan meant that you got a phone for the price of a phone plan. The alternative is paying for your phone, and just change service anytime.
This sucks however when you are traveling abroad. If your plan doesn't have roaming at your destination, you can't use a local or travel SIM/eSIM. For some people this seems to work fine.
I never owned a sim-locked phone and never will.
Funfact: sim-locking is the standard in Japan. And if you think you have it bad in america, you really need to take a look at the things they do in Japan. They have two-way SIM locking: you can't even use your current SIM on an unlocked phone!!! You HAVE to buy the phone FROM the phone company or else it won't work. Or you can get a SIM that will work with unlocked phones, but they won't sell you a phone (not even sim-locked) if you do this. Are you a foreigner? no sorry, we won't sell you service because you're a flight risk. "We have been having cases of foreigners leaving the country with unpaid bills. yes, we know you are a legan resident and you need a phone to function in society nowadays but you know, the risk of you not paying us 1 month of is far greater than whatever money we can make off you".
Re: Even simpler solution (Score:2)
Re: Even simpler solution (Score:2)
can you make phone calls with these? The problem in Japan is actually getting a number you can call from. Many of these sims, especially the ones targeted at tourists, are data-only SIMs. to get a phone number you need identity validation and for this they often require a proof of Japanese address.
the stories about sim card bullshit I've heard from Japanese resident podcasts and a travelers Discord group I'm a part of.
the question usually pops up whenever people are trying to buy tickets and the website ref
Re: (Score:3)
There's a third option, and one I've done in the past. Remember, the contract is for a term defined plan. The phone is part of the offer to get you in the contract. It's possible he wanted the phone to put on another service and he would have used a different phone on Veriz
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
you do have to pay a lot out-of-pocket up-front however so people on a tight budget might not be able to get high-end phone (in a sense, maybe they shouldn't either ...).
That's kind of the crux of the issue here, since the USA has normalized that everyone needs the latest iPhone and must upgrade it every year or two. This sort of subsidy plans, carrier-sponsored trade-in offers ("Get the latest iPhone FREE! Just sign a new 3 year service contract..."), advertising and, at least on the part of some vendors, short software update windows, feed into this.
There was this article [cnbc.com] not too long ago, in which the economic ruling class is complaining that people are keeping their o
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depends. Is the phone "discounted" if you do this? For a while, committing to a yearly plan meant that you got a phone for the price of a phone plan. The alternative is paying for your phone, and just change service anytime.
There is another alternative.
Sell the unlocked phone with a discount, but only if the subscriber signs a contract that says that if you terminate it within a year (or however long), you'll have to pay early-termination fee to the amount of the discount.
Does it matter if the subscriber uses the phone with a different network? He's still paying you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the phone "discounted" if you do this?
You don't need SIM locking to put a discount on a phone, just only offer the phone with a contract term with a termination clause to recover the cost. SIM-locking is a stupid solution to a stupid self-made problem.
I never owned a sim-locked phone and never will.
Same, because I live in a country where such stupidity is banned.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it depends. Is the phone "discounted" if you do this?
It may or may not be "discounted". It doesn't matter. Canada banned SIM-locking and "discounted" phones are still a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
SIM-locking should be banned, period. Works well in many other countries. There is no valid reason to SIM-lock a phone, even for 60 days or 60 days of active paid service. It's a net loss to society as a whole. Even though I understand it can benefit Verizon in one case, it also prevented someone else to switch to Verizon from a competitor.
I think people in other countries generally buy their phones outright, rather than via provider payment plans, often at a discount, like in the U.S. and I think SIM locking is to prevent people from switching providers before those phones are paid off - and so the providers don't have to sue to recoup that money. That's probably reasonable, but doing it to just make it harder for people to switch is not. Of course, most phones smartphones probably aren't paid off after 60 days, unless providers have anot
Re: (Score:2)
I think people in other countries generally buy their phones outright, rather than via provider payment plans, often at a discount, like in the U.S. and I think SIM locking is to prevent people from switching providers before those phones are paid off - and so the providers don't have to sue to recoup that money.
Not really. At least not in Canada. "Discounted" phones are a thing just like in the US.
Phone thieves have always been able to unlock phones anyways, so it brings 0 security to the carrier. It's just hassle for the consumers.
That's probably reasonable
No it's not. I got my phone heavily discounted. I'll have to continue to pay the bill even if I terminate my plan. Just like I still have to pay my credit card each month.
It's the same kind of business and risk.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no valid reason to SIM-lock a phone
Carriers can offer subsidised hardware without customers abusing it to get a cheap phone and use elsewhere. Those deals will get more expensive if you ban SIM locking.
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. Just look at the countries who banned SIM-locking.
Just because you use your phone elsewhere doesn't erase your debt.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not erase your debt, but there is a cost to debt recovery, and the typical value of a phone means most companies do not want to bother with debt collection on such a small amount.
Sim locking is a "good" way to prevent a customer taking advantage of a discount to acquire a phone cheaply from one network provider and using the phone with a different network.
I don't have a problem with it if the company makes it clear that the phone will only be mine once I fulfil my contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Not it's not a good way. Unlocking them is easy, and developing and maintaining the SIM-lock feature also cost money.
Also it prevents legitimate uses cases. Just because I am leasing a phone from a carrier doesn't mean that I shouldn't be allowed to swap the SIM card when I travel, or say, because I want to continue my current plan on a different phone and give that phone to my kid which has a plan on another network.
Overall, SIM-locking is a net loss to society. A text-book market failure. In a true compet
Re: (Score:2)
SIM-locking should be banned, period.
That actually was a stipulation Verizon agreed to when they licensed the 700MHz "C Block" LTE spectrum. Then, sometime around 9 years ago, they just started locking their phones anyway. [youtube.com] Political leadership changes at the FCC probably had something to do with it.
The carriers' argument is that they want to be able to offer subsidized prepaid phones, and without the SIM locking they'd up with people buying phones to use on competing services (though you'd figure that'd probably end up being a wash, with the
Re: (Score:2)
in this instance Verizon shot itself in the foot. Realized it and tried to force someone into new terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Sim locking makes sense as long as there in is Phone deal such as they give you a $1200 phone for "free" as long as you promise to pay their inflated service pricing for 3 years.
No it doesn't. You can still stop paying for the phone and sell it to someone else who will get a cheap plan on the same network. Or even better, will unlock it for free or for $10 (which won't go into Verizon's pocket).
It's not as if society needed that we finance cell phones from carriers. Just like you don't finance your computer from your ISP.
But anyway phone financing plan are gong just as strong without SIM-locking in many countries. So using that excuse is lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those deals also exist in some countries who banned SIM-locking. So again, there is no good reason to allow SIM-locking of phones.
Not much of a victory (Score:4, Insightful)
According to the story, he still had to pay for a second month of service before the phone was unlocked.
Still, keeping people informed about the sleazy tactics used by just about every large corporation out there is a good thing, so kudos to Mr. Roach.
Re: (Score:2)
He literally said: "it wasn't about" the money
I'm altering the deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pray I don't alter it futher
"But 60 days after Roach activated his phone, Verizon refused to unlock it. Verizon claimed it didn’t have to because of a recent policy change in which Verizon decided to only unlock devices after “60 days of paid active service.” Roach had only paid for one month of service on the phone."
This is the problem with "Contracts of adhesion". They're contracts written on flypaper, and one side gets to make changes and the other side is told to "take it or leave it"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah when I added a device to my plan and signed a contract, I guess, they were giving a $10 discount per line for auto pay. That somehow had gone down to $5 since then. Seems like that would be a change of terms of an agreement, though I didn't read the fine print to figure out if that's the case. Either case, very sleazy, and up to me to take my chances with cell service from a discount carrier.
and then... (Score:2)
one side gets to make changes and the other side is told to "take it or leave it"
and when the other side opts for "leave it", the first side will claim it no longer has any obligations since the contract is now void (read: Verizon would claim it is no longer required to do any unlocks).
Obviously a win-win for Verizon only, thanks to spineless and fucking useless FCC (read story for more on that).
Binding arbitration or small claims court (Score:2)
Those are usually your only two options to pursue a complaint against large American Corporations.
It's going to take a corporate screw-up of very large proportions where several people lose their lives to get the Federal Arbitration Act modified to exclude consumers, and even then it still might not happen. '
Only in America
Surprised Verizon didn't require arbitration (Score:2)
I thought all modern contracts with jokers like this mandated arbitration.
Re: Surprised Verizon didn't require arbitration (Score:2)
6-7 bucks per hour (Score:2)
$400 / 20 hours or so.
About $6-7 per hour.
Interesting.
410.40 dollars or cents? (Score:2)
410.40 dollars or cents?
Verizon is awful about this (Score:2)
Supposed, the phone is unlocked after 90 days, but it's not, and Verizon refuses to fix it.
I did not think it was worth a lawsuit, but I am glad that somebody did.
Happened to me recently with Boost Mobile (Score:3)
They did some kind of network update that degraded the service to the point of being unusable, were unable to fix it across multiple support calls and when I finally called to port my number and phone to a new carrier as a result, said that since I had only had the phone for a few months instead of the 1.5 years that I actually had been using it for, they refused to unlock it.
Unlike the person in the article, since the phone was very cheap and I needed it fixed immediately, I just bought a new (unlocked) phone and sold the old one to recoup some of the expense, but they are now on my list of companies to never do business with again.
NDAs for consumer settlements (Score:3)
Cases like this, make me feel that there should be laws against NDAs in the context of customer settlements.
or you could lie about it (Score:2)
we should probably be punish flagrant attempts at theft more harshly, since the slap-on-the-wrist thing has just been taken as tacit approval for the last fifty years
and i guess they've taken the message to heart since capitalism appears to run entirely on lying and stealing these days
it's like, hey, instead of dealing with this problem, let's just assume people can't do better and just bake the issue into the system so that people stop noticing
now the whole system's retarded
Yay (Score:2)
So this has nothing to do with technology, or even phones. It's just a ruling on when policy changes are legally allowed to take effect, Yay Slashdot. Always keeping your finger on the pulse.
Stop buying from the carrier (Score:1)
The real story (Score:2)
This is the promise of AI, helping yourself through complex issues to get a real result.
Re: (Score:1)
>I'd bet further this case would never have been brought had it not been for the help of AI.
In the old days he would've gotten an hour or two of free anonymous legal help from someone he knew who happened to be a lawyer and who liked the idea of having John Q. Citizen stick it to BigCorp "all by himself."
Today, he gets 10 minutes of "free" help from an AI that is learning from every query he makes.
David 1 - Goliath 0 (Score:1)