verizon

Verizon starts requiring 365 days of paid service before it will unlock phones

phone unlocking, Policy, tracfone, verizon / Tim Belzer / January 20, 2026

Verizon has started enforcing a 365-day lock period on phones purchased through its TracFone division, one week after the Federal Communications Commission waived a requirement that Verizon unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network.

Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days due to restrictions imposed on its spectrum licenses and merger conditions that helped Verizon obtain approval of its purchase of TracFone. But an update applied today to the TracFone unlocking policy said new phones will be locked for at least a year and that each customer will have to request an unlock instead of getting it automatically.

The “new” TracFone policy is basically a return to the yearlong locking it imposed before Verizon bought the company in 2021. TracFone first agreed to provide unlocking in a 2015 settlement with the Obama-era FCC, which alleged that TracFone failed to comply with a commitment to unlock phones for customers enrolled in the Lifeline subsidy program. TracFone later shortened the locking period from a year to 60 days as a condition of the Verizon merger.

While a locked phone is tied to the network of one carrier, an unlocked phone can be switched to another carrier if the device is compatible with the other carrier’s network. But the new TracFone unlocking policy is stringent, requiring customers to pay for a full year of service before they can get a phone unlocked.

“For all cellphones Activated on or after January 20, 2026, the cellphone will be unlocked upon request after 365 days of paid and active service,” the policy says. A customer who doesn’t maintain an active service plan for the whole 12 months will thus have their unlocking eligibility date delayed.

Besides TracFone, the change applies to prepaid brands Straight Talk, Net10 Wireless, Clearway, Total Wireless, Simple Mobile, SafeLink Wireless, and Walmart Family Mobile. Customers who bought phones before today are still eligible for unlocks after 60 days.

365 days of paid service

As DroidLife points out, the Verizon-owned prepaid brand Visible is also requiring a year of paid service. The Visible policy updated today requires “at least 365 days of paid service” for an unlocking request. “If you stop paying for service, your progress toward the 365-day requirement pauses. It will resume once you reactivate your account and continue until you reach a total of 365 paid days of service,” the policy says.

Verizon starts requiring 365 days of paid service before it will unlock phones Read More »

Calif. counters FCC attack on DEI with conditions on Verizon/Frontier merger

California, Frontier, Policy, verizon / Rejus Almole / January 16, 2026

Verizon has received all approvals it needs for a $9.6 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications, an Internet service provider with about 3.3 million broadband customers in 25 states. Verizon said it expects to complete the merger on January 20.

The last approval came from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which allowed the deal in a 5–0 vote yesterday. There were months of negotiations that resulted in requirements to deploy more fiber and wireless infrastructure, offer $20-per-month Internet service to people with low incomes for the next decade, and other commitments, including some designed to replace the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies that Verizon had to end because of demands by the Trump administration.

“The approval follows extensive public participation, testimony from multiple parties, and negotiated settlement agreements with consumer advocates and labor organizations,” the CPUC said yesterday.

Verizon struck the merger deal with Frontier in September 2024, agreeing to pay $9.6 billion in cash and assume over $10 billion in debt held by Frontier. The all-cash transaction is valued at $20 billion including debt. Verizon said yesterday that the merged firm “will have an expanded reach of almost 30 million fiber passings across 31 states and Washington, DC.”

Verizon to expand network, maintain low-income plans

Verizon’s interest in its home Internet business has waxed and waned over the years, but the company seems pretty committed to fiber and fixed wireless home Internet these days. Part of the deal involves Verizon buying back a former portion of its network that it sold to Frontier almost 10 years ago. In 2016, Frontier bought Verizon’s FiOS and DSL operations in Florida, California, and Texas.

At yesterday’s CPUC meeting, Commissioner John Reynolds described Verizon’s commitments. Verizon will deploy fiber to 75,000 new locations within five years, prioritizing census blocks with income at or below 90 percent of the county median, he said. For wireless service, Verizon is required to deploy 250 new cell sites with 5G and fixed wireless capability in areas eligible for state broadband grants and areas with high fire threats, he said.

Calif. counters FCC attack on DEI with conditions on Verizon/Frontier merger Read More »

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule

FCC, phone unlocking, Policy, verizon / Rejus Almole / January 12, 2026

FCC waives rule that forced Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

The Federal Communications Commission is letting Verizon lock phones to its network for longer periods, eliminating a requirement to unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. The change will make it harder for people to switch from Verizon to other carriers.

The FCC today granted Verizon’s petition for a waiver of the 60-day unlocking requirement. While the waiver is in effect, Verizon only has to comply with the CTIA trade group’s voluntary unlocking policy. The CTIA policy calls for unlocking prepaid mobile devices one year after activation, while devices on postpaid plans can be unlocked after a contract, device financing plan, or early termination fee is paid.

Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on another carrier’s network. While Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days, the CTIA code says carriers only have to unlock phones “upon request” from consumers. The FCC said the Verizon waiver will remain in effect until the agency “decides on an appropriate industry-wide approach for the unlocking of handsets.”

The FCC rejected a request to at least limit the locking period to 180 days. The agency’s order said the CTIA code provides “an adequate threshold of ensuring Verizon consumers have competitive options and that granting this waiver will not impede those competitive options. We thus decline to limit today’s waiver to a period of 180 days.”

Until today’s waiver order, Verizon faced strict unlocking requirements that didn’t apply to other carriers. But that was by choice, as Verizon gained significant benefits in exchange for agreeing to unlocking requirements in 2008 when it purchased licenses to use 700 MHz spectrum, and again in 2021 when it agreed to merger conditions to obtain approval for its purchase of TracFone.

Goodbye, automatic unlocking

Verizon used to sell phones that were already unlocked, but in 2019 it obtained a waiver that allowed it to lock phones for 60 days in order to deter fraud. In March 2025, Verizon said the 60-day locking period wasn’t long enough to stop fraud and asked the FCC to waive the requirement.

In a press release today, the FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”

A statement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said, “Sophisticated criminal networks have exploited the FCC’s handset unlocking policies to carry out criminal acts—including transnational handset trafficking schemes and facilitating broader criminal enterprises like drug running and human smuggling. By waiving a regulation that incentivized bad actors to target one particular carrier’s handsets for theft, we now have a uniform industry standard that can help stem the flow of handsets into the black market.”

Verizon’s current policy is for phones to be “remotely unlocked automatically 60 days after paid activation and 60 days of paid active service.” Phones already activated on the Verizon network won’t be affected by the waiver, according to the FCC.

“The terms of this waiver apply to all handsets that become active on Verizon’s network beginning the day after the release date of this Order,” the FCC ruling said. “The prospective application of this waiver will minimize customer confusion and interference with existing contractual arrangements and service agreements. Upon the release of this waiver, Verizon has stated that it will change its unlocking policies to follow those set out in the CTIA Consumer Code.”

Man sued Verizon to get phone unlocked

We recently wrote about a Kansas resident, Patrick Roach, who sued Verizon and complained to the FCC after the carrier refused to unlock an iPhone he purchased. Although the FCC took no action on Roach’s complaint, a small claims court ruled in his favor because Verizon tried to retroactively enforce a locking policy implemented in April 2025 on a phone Roach had bought before the policy change.

Verizon’s April 2025 policy change required “60 days of paid active service” before Verizon would unlock a customer’s phone. Roach alleged that this violated the FCC condition, which required Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation and did not say that Verizon may refuse to unlock a phone when a customer has not maintained paid service for 60 days. Going forward, today’s FCC ruling will render that distinction moot and make it easier for Verizon to avoid unlocking phones.

The Verizon petition was opposed in a filing by Public Knowledge, the Benton Foundation, Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and other groups. The automatic unlocking enforced through the FCC condition was good for consumers and competition, the groups said.

“Automatic unlocking reduces switching costs, enhances competition, and promotes a more efficient and sustainable device marketplace,” the groups said. “It facilitates the resale and reuse of mobile devices, reduces e-waste, and enables low-cost carriers and MVNOs to compete on a more level playing field. The opposite, which Verizon seeks through its waiver request, merely serves as a way to keep customers locked in one provider.”

FCC cites law enforcement arguments

The consumer groups’ filing argued that “Verizon offers no specific evidence that a longer lock period would have prevented the fraudulent acquisition of the devices it identifies,” and said the carrier is capable of detecting and responding to fraud during the 60-day locking period.

“It can flag suspicious purchases, deny unlocking to devices that show signs of trafficking, and pursue legal or contractual remedies against fraudulent actors,” the groups said. “The Commission has previously found that 60 days is a reasonable and sufficient period to allow providers to identify and act upon fraudulent behavior. Verizon has not shown that these prior determinations were in error or that its current loss mitigation measures are being overwhelmed solely because of the unlocking rule.”

The FCC rejected these arguments, saying it found that the 60-day period has been insufficient to deter fraud. “Verizon explains that the globalization of 4G LTE and 5G technologies in recent years has created a ready overseas market for fraudulently obtained handsets, and stolen handsets are frequently sold or distributed to a secondary black market in countries that do not participate in GSMA blocking,” the FCC said.

The agency said the waiver will address concerns of law enforcement associations that supported Verizon’s petition. “Law enforcement commenters have convincingly linked our handset unlocking policies and public safety matters on the basis that the current 60-day policy has impacted law enforcement lives and requires that law enforcement entities dedicate significant resources to investigating stolen handsets rather than focus on other public safety matters,” the FCC said.

Verizon issued a statement thanking the FCC for the waiver. “The FCC’s action will end bad actors’ ability to exploit the FCC’s unlocking rules to profit from easier access to expensive, heavily subsidized devices in the US that they traffic and sell to other parts of the world,” Verizon said. “Before today’s decision, the FCC’s rules have benefitted these international criminal gangs at the expense of legitimate American consumers.”

Cable lobby group NCTA was not pleased by the FCC decision. Cable companies have increasingly been competing against large mobile carriers by offering wireless service in recent years.

“Mobile phone unlocking delivers clear pro-consumer benefits, saving billions of dollars across the mobile marketplace by expanding choice, competition, and affordability,” the NCTA said. “Today’s decision delays these benefits, underscoring the need for a clear, uniform framework so all wireless providers operate under the same rules.” The NCTA has urged the FCC to implement a 180-day unlocking requirement.

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule Read More »

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines

AT&T, FCC, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / Mike M. / January 12, 2026

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could invalidate the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to issue fines against companies regulated by the FCC.

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile challenged the FCC’s ability to punish them after the commission fined the carriers for selling customer location data without their users’ consent. AT&T convinced the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn its fine, while Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit and T-Mobile lost in the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verizon petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse its loss, while the FCC and Justice Department petitioned the court to overturn AT&T’s victory in the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court granted both petitions to hear the challenges and consolidated the cases in a list of orders released Friday. Oral arguments will be held.

In 2024, the FCC fined the big three carriers a total of $196 million for location data sales revealed in 2018, saying the companies were punished “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.” Carriers challenged in three appeals courts, arguing that the fines violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Carriers claim FCC violates right to jury trial

The carriers’ cases against the FCC rely on the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that a similar but not identical SEC system for issuing fines violated the right to a jury trial.

The conservative-leaning 5th Circuit appeals court decided that the FCC violated AT&T’s rights while “act[ing] as prosecutor, jury, and judge.” But the 2nd Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit courts found that each carrier could have obtained a jury trial if it simply decided not to pay the fine.

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines Read More »

Verizon refused to unlock man’s iPhone, so he sued the carrier and won

Features, phone unlocking, Policy, straight talk, tracfone, verizon / Kris Guyer / December 16, 2025

Verizon customer fights back

Verizon changed policy after he bought the phone, wouldn’t unlock it despite FCC rule.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

When Verizon refused to unlock an iPhone purchased by Kansas resident Patrick Roach, he had no intention of giving up without a fight. Roach sued the wireless carrier in small claims court and won.

Roach bought a discounted iPhone 16e from Verizon’s Straight Talk brand on February 28, 2025, as a gift for his wife’s birthday. He intended to pay for one month of service, cancel, and then switch the phone to the US Mobile service plan that the couple uses. Under federal rules that apply to Verizon and a Verizon unlocking policy that was in place when Roach bought the phone, this strategy should have worked.

“The best deals tend to be buying it from one of these MVNOs [Mobile Virtual Network Operators] and then activating it until it unlocks and then switching it to whatever you are planning to use it with. It usually saves you about half the value of the phone,” Roach said in a phone interview.

Unlocking a phone allows it to be used with another carrier. Verizon, unlike other carriers, is required by the Federal Communications Commission to unlock phones shortly after they are activated on its network. Verizon gained significant benefits in exchange for agreeing to the unlocking requirement, first in 2008 when it purchased licenses to use 700 MHz spectrum that came with open access requirements and then in 2021 when it agreed to merger conditions to obtain approval for its purchase of TracFone.

Verizon is thus required to unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. This applies to Verizon’s flagship brand and TracFone brands such as Straight Talk.

“That was the compromise. For their competitive advantage of acquiring the spectrum, they had to give up the ability to lock down phones for an extended period of time,” Roach said.

Verizon decided it can change the rules

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.

The FCC-imposed restriction says Verizon must unlock phones 60 days after activation and doesn’t say that Verizon may refuse to unlock a phone when a customer has not maintained paid service for 60 days. Moreover, Verizon implemented its “60 days of paid active service” policy for TracFone brands and Verizon prepaid phones on April 1, 2025, over a month after Roach bought the phone.

Company policy at the time Roach made the purchase was to unlock phones 60 days after activation, with no mention of needing 60 days of paid active service. In other words, Roach bought the phone under one policy, and Verizon refused to unlock it based on a different policy it implemented over a month later. Verizon’s attempt to retroactively enforce its new policy on Roach was not looked upon favorably by a magistrate judge in District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas.

“Under the KCPA [Kansas Consumer Protection Act], a consumer is not required to prove intent to defraud. 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,” Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry wrote in an October 2025 ruling.

There’s still the question of why Verizon and its brands are demanding 60 days of paid active service before unlocking phones when the FCC-imposed conditions require it to unlock phones 60 days after activation. Roach filed a complaint to the FCC, alleging that Verizon violated the conditions. Verizon has meanwhile petitioned the FCC to eliminate the 60-day requirement altogether.

Customer rejected Verizon settlement offer

Before his small-claims court win, Roach turned down a Verizon settlement offer of $600 plus court fees because he didn’t want to give up the right to speak about the case publicly. Roach said he filed an arbitration case against Verizon nearly a decade ago on a different matter related to gift cards that were supposed to be provided through a device recycling program. He said he can’t reveal details about the settlement in that previous case because of a non-disclosure agreement.

After refusing Verizon’s settlement offer in the new case, Roach gained a modest financial benefit from his court victory. The judge ordered Verizon to pay back the $410.40 he paid for the device, plus court costs and service fees.

When it appeared that the Straight Talk iPhone wouldn’t be unlocked, Roach decided to buy an unlocked phone from Costco for $643.93. But he ended up returning that phone to Costco and paying Straight Talk for a second month of service to get the original phone unlocked, he said.

The now-unlocked phone—the one he bought from Straight Talk—is being used by his wife on their US Mobile plan. The court-ordered refund check that Verizon sent Roach included the phone cost and one month of service fees, he said.

Roach estimated he spent 20 or so hours on the suit, including arranging to have a summons served on Verizon and arguing his case in a court hearing. Roach didn’t get much of a payout considering the amount of time he spent, “but it wasn’t about that,” he said.

Roach provided Ars with the emails in which Verizon offered the $600 settlement. A Verizon executive relations employee wrote to Roach, “My offer is not an admission of guilt but trying to extend the olive branch.”

In his email declining the offer, Roach told Verizon, “I highly value the non-monetary outcomes I would achieve in court—transparency, accountability, and the absence of restrictions such as NDAs. Any settlement proposal that requires me to remain silent about the issue, while offering only modest monetary compensation, is less attractive to me than pursuing the matter through judgment. If Verizon Value is genuinely interested in settlement, the offer would need to reflect both the tangible costs I’ve incurred and the intangible but significant benefits the company receives by avoiding litigation and publicity.”

“It was really starting to irk me”

The FCC has taken no action on Roach’s complaint, and in fact, the commission could allow Verizon to scrap the 60-day requirement. As we reported in May, Verizon petitioned the FCC to let it lock phones to its network for longer periods of time. This would make it harder for customers to switch to other carriers, but Verizon claims longer locking periods are necessary to deter fraud.

The FCC hasn’t ruled yet on Verizon’s petition. Roach says Verizon seems to be acting as if it can change the rules without waiting for the FCC to do so formally. “It was really starting to irk me that they were basically just going ahead with it anyways while they had an open request,” Roach said.

He doesn’t expect the FCC to penalize Verizon, though. “It’s just kind of slimy of them, so I feel like it deserves a spotlight,” he said. “I’m not sure with the current state of the FCC that anything would happen, but the rule of law should be respected.”

The Verizon petition to relax the unlocking requirements was opposed in a filing by Public Knowledge and other consumer advocacy groups. Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer, who wrote the filing, told Ars that Roach “has a pretty strong argument under the law as it stands.”

Verizon must unlock phones automatically

The unlocking rules applying to Verizon used to be stricter, resulting in the company selling phones that were already unlocked. In 2019, Verizon requested a waiver to let it lock phones for 60 days.

The FCC granted the waiver in June 2019, allowing Verizon “to lock a customer’s handset for 60 days from the date it becomes active on Verizon’s network” and requiring it to unlock the handset once the period is over. This condition was expanded to TracFone and its brands such as Straight Talk in the 2021 merger, with the FCC approval stating that “For 700 MHz C Block TracFone devices that operate on the Verizon network and are capable of unlocking automatically (e.g., Apple devices), they will unlock automatically 60 days after activation.”

The 2019 waiver grant said Verizon must automatically unlock phones after 60 days “regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked, or (2) the handset is fully paid off.” The FCC order specifies that “the only exception to the rule will be that Verizon will not have to automatically unlock handsets that it determines within the 60-day period to have been purchased through fraud.”

Bergmayer said the FCC order “granting the waiver just starts a countdown, with no ‘paid service’ requirement, or room for Verizon to just impose one. Many people may use prepaid phones that they don’t keep in continuous service but just charge up as needed. Maybe people are fine with just having Wi-Fi on their phones for a while if they’re at home anyway.”

Given the restrictive nature of the FCC conditions, “I don’t think that can be read to allow a paid service requirement,” Bergmayer said. But as a practical matter, the FCC under Chairman Brendan Carr has been aggressively eliminating regulations that apply to telecom carriers under Carr’s “Delete, Delete, Delete” initiative. To actually enforce Verizon’s obligations under the current rules, “you have to convince the current FCC not to just change it,” Bergmayer said.

The FCC and Verizon did not respond to requests for comment.

Retroactive policy change irked other buyers, too

Roach wasn’t the only person whose plans to buy a discounted phone were thwarted by Verizon refusing to unlock the device after 60 days. Roach had learned of the discount offer from a Slick Deals thread. Eventually, users posting in that thread started reporting that they weren’t able to get the phone unlocked.

“My status: I used 30 days with Straight Talk. Waited another 35 days but it did not unlock,” one person wrote.

Some people in the thread said they canceled after 30 days, like Roach did, but eventually bought a second month of service in order to get the unlock. Although Verizon and its brands are required to unlock phones automatically, some commenters said they had to contact Straight Talk support to get an unlock. “Needless to say this has been an arduous journey. Good luck to others and hope you manage to successfully unlock your devices as well,” one user wrote.

There’s also a Reddit thread started by someone who said they bought a Samsung phone in February and complained that Straight Talk refused to honor the unlocking policy that was in place at the time.

“I called to ask for the phone to be unlocked on April 16 but was told it can’t be unlocked since it did not have 60 days of paid service,” the Reddit user wrote. “When I said that was not the policy on phones activated prior to April 1, the rep told me ‘we have the right to change our policy.’ I agreed, they do [have] the right to change their policy GOING FORWARD but can’t change the rules going backwards. He disagreed.”

FCC complaint didn’t go anywhere

Roach’s FCC complaint received a response from Verizon, but nothing substantial from the FCC itself. “There’s not really any sort of moderation or mediation from the FCC, it’s just kind of a dialogue between you and the other party. And I’m not really sure if any human eyes from the government even look at it. It’s probably just a data point,” Roach said.

Roach had previously called Straight Talk customer service about the changed terms. “There were a couple phone calls involved, and they were just very unrelenting that the only way that thing was getting unlocked is with the extra month of paid service,” he said.

In its formal response to the FCC, Verizon’s TracFone division asserted that it could apply the April 1, 2025, policy change to the phone that Roach bought over a month earlier. The carrier’s letter to the FCC said:

We understand Mr. Roach’s desire to use his device on another carrier’s network, and we want to provide clarity based on our Unlocking Policy, which became effective on April 1, 2025. As outlined in our policy, for cellphones capable of remote unlocking (this includes most iPhones and some Android cellphones) that were activated with Straight Talk service prior to November 23, 2021, on any carrier network, the device becomes eligible for remote unlocking upon the customer’s request after 60 days of active paid service.

Our redemption records indicate that Mr. Roach’s account does not have the required minimum 60 days of active paid service based on the payment records. Therefore, the device does not currently meet the eligibility criteria for unlocking as outlined in our policy. Once the account reflects the required 60 days of active paid service, and the device meets the other conditions, he can resubmit the unlocking request.

Verizon’s letter did not explain how its new policy complies with the FCC conditions or why the new policy should apply to phones purchased before the policy was in place.

Roach’s complaint said the FCC should force Straight Talk to “honor the FCC-mandated 60-day post-activation unlock condition for all affected phones, without imposing the additional ‘paid service’ requirement.” His complaint further urged the FCC to “investigate this practice as a violation of FCC rules and the merger conditions” and “take enforcement action to protect consumers’ rights.”

“Straight Talk’s new policy conflicts with the FCC’s binding conditions,” Roach told the agency. “The Commission’s order clearly requires unlocking after 60 days from activation, with no additional obligation to maintain service. By conditioning unlocks on two months of service, Straight Talk is effectively adding a term that Verizon did not promise and the FCC did not approve.”

Kansas consumer protection law to the rescue

In his small claims court filing, Roach alleged that Verizon and Straight violated the FCC conditions and that the retroactive application of the “60 days of paid service” term, without disclosure at the point of sale, is an unfair and deceptive practice prohibited by the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

The magistrate judge’s ruling in Roach’s favor said, “It does appear that defendant’s change unlocking policy is contrary to the applicable FCC regulations.” She noted that federal communications law does not prevent users from suing carriers individually and that the Kansas Consumer Protection Act “contains provisions prohibiting deceptive acts by a supplier which would be applicable in this case.”

Roach asked for $10,000, mainly because that was the limit on damages in the venue, but the judge decided to award him damages in the amount of his actual losses. “He lost the beneﬁt of the bargain he made with defendant such that his damages were loss of the $410.40,” the ruling said.

Straight Talk’s terms of service require disputes to be resolved either in arbitration or small claims court. Verizon pays the arbitration fees if users go that route. Arbitration is “a little more murky” in terms of how the parties’ interests are aligned, Roach said.

“When the arbitrators are being paid by Verizon, are they really a neutral party?” he said. Roach also said he “thought it was honestly just a good opportunity for an easy win and an opportunity to learn about the small claims court system a bit. So at that point I was like, if I don’t make any money from this, whatever, but at least I’ll learn a little bit about the process.”

Verizon’s “argument was pretty weak”

Roach said he did not consult with a lawyer on his small claims case, instead opting to do it all himself. “The first time I showed up to court for the original date, they asked for proof of the returned mail summons, and I did not have that,” he said.

The court hearing was rescheduled. When it was eventually held, the carrier sent a representative to argue against Roach.

“Their argument was pretty weak, I guess,” Roach said. “It was basically like, ‘Well, he didn’t pay the two months of service, so we didn’t unlock his phone. We offered him a settlement but he rejected it.’… My argument was, yeah, the terms had changed in kind of a consumer-unfriendly way. But beyond that, it was the fact that the terms had changed from something that was legal to something that was not legal with the federal regs. So regardless of the fact that the terms had changed, the current terms were illegal, which I thought was my strongest argument. And then I also put in that it was probably a violation of Kansas consumer protection law, which I’m glad I did.”

Roach said that toward the end of the hearing, the judge indicated that she couldn’t make a judgment based on FCC regulations and would need to rule on what the Kansas court has jurisdiction over. She issued the ruling that Verizon violated the state’s consumer protection law about five or six weeks later, he said.

Given that the FCC hasn’t acted on Verizon’s petition to change the unlocking rules, the federal regulations “haven’t changed at all in regards to Verizon’s obligation to unlock devices,” Roach said. He believes it would be relatively easy for consumers who were similarly harmed to beat Verizon in court or even to pursue a class action.

“I would think this would be a slam dunk for any further cases,” Roach said. “I don’t think I have any grounds anymore since my damages have been resolved, but it seems like it’d be a very easy class action for somebody.”

Verizon refused to unlock man’s iPhone, so he sued the carrier and won Read More »

Elon Musk tries to make Apple and mobile carriers regret choosing Starlink rivals

Apple, ast spacemobile, AT&T, Features, globalstar, IPhone, Policy, Space, spacex, starlink, T-Mobile, verizon / Tim Belzer / October 6, 2025

SpaceX holds spectrum licenses for the Starlink fixed Internet service for homes and businesses. Adding the EchoStar spectrum will make its holdings suitable for mobile service.

“SpaceX currently holds no terrestrial spectrum authorizations and no license to use spectrum allocated on a primary basis to MSS,” the company’s FCC filing said. “Its only authorization to provide any form of mobile service is an authorization for secondary SCS [Supplemental Coverage from Space] operations in spectrum licensed to T-Mobile.”

Starlink unlikely to dethrone major carriers

SpaceX’s spectrum purchase doesn’t make it likely that Starlink will become a fourth major carrier. Grand claims of that sort are “complete nonsense,” wrote industry analyst Dean Bubley. “Apart from anything else, there’s one very obvious physical obstacle: walls and roofs,” he wrote. “Space-based wireless, even if it’s at frequencies supported in normal smartphones, won’t work properly indoors. And uplink from devices to satellites will be even worse.”

When you’re indoors, “there’s more attenuation of the signal,” resulting in lower data rates, Farrar said. “You might not even get megabits per second indoors, unless you are going to go onto a home Starlink broadband network,” he said. “You might only be able to get hundreds of kilobits per second in an obstructed area.”

The Mach33 analyst firm is more bullish than others regarding Starlink’s potential cellular capabilities. “With AWS-4/H-block and V3 [satellites], Starlink DTC is no longer niche, it’s a path to genuine MNO competition. Watch for retail mobile bundles, handset support, and urban hardware as the signals of that pivot,” the firm said.

Mach33’s optimism is based in part on the expectation that SpaceX will make more deals. “DTC isn’t just a coverage filler, it’s a springboard. It enables alternative growth routes; M&A, spectrum deals, subleasing capacity in denser markets, or technical solutions like mini-towers that extend Starlink into neighborhoods,” the group’s analysis said.

The amount of spectrum SpaceX is buying from EchoStar is just a fraction of what the national carriers control. There is “about 1.1 GHz of licensed spectrum currently allocated to mobile operators,” wireless lobby group CTIA said in a January 2025 report. The group also says the cellular industry has over 432,000 active cell sites around the US.

What Starlink can offer cellular users “is nothing compared to the capacity of today’s 5G networks,” but it would be useful “in less populated areas or where you cannot get coverage,” Rysavy said.

Starlink has about 8,500 satellites in orbit. Rysavy estimated in a July 2025 report that about 280 of them are over the United States at any given time. These satellites are mostly providing fixed Internet service in which an antenna is placed outside a building so that people can use Wi-Fi indoors.

SpaceX’s FCC filing said the EchoStar spectrum’s mix of terrestrial and satellite frequencies will be ideal for Starlink.

“By acquiring EchoStar’s market-access authorization for 2 GHz MSS as well as its terrestrial AWS-4 licenses, SpaceX will be able to deploy a hybrid satellite and terrestrial network, just as the Commission envisioned EchoStar would do,” SpaceX said. “Consistent with the Commission’s finding that potential interference between MSS and terrestrial mobile service can best be managed by enabling a single licensee to control both networks, assignment of the AWS-4 spectrum is critical to enable SpaceX to deploy robust MSS service in this band.”

Elon Musk tries to make Apple and mobile carriers regret choosing Starlink rivals Read More »

Court rejects Verizon claim that selling location data without consent is legal

Policy, verizon / Kris Guyer / September 11, 2025

Instead of providing notice to customers and obtaining or verifying customer consent itself, Verizon “largely delegated those functions via contract,” the court said. This system and its shortcomings were revealed in 2018 when “the New York Times published an article reporting security breaches involving Verizon’s (and other major carriers’) location-based services program,” the court said.

Securus Technologies, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, “was misusing the program to enable law enforcement officers to access location data without customers’ knowledge or consent, so long as the officers uploaded a warrant or some other legal authorization,” the ruling said. A Missouri sheriff “was able to access customer data with no legal process at all” because Securus did not review the documents that law enforcement uploaded.

Verizon claimed that Section 222 of the Communications Act covers only call-location data, as opposed to device location data. The court disagreed, pointing to the law’s text stating that customer proprietary network information includes data that is related to the location of a telecommunications service, and which is made available to the carrier “solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship.”

“Device-location data comfortably satisfies both conditions,” the court said.

Verizon chose to pay fine, giving up right to jury trial

As for Verizon’s claim that the FCC violated its right to a jury trial, the court said that “Verizon could have gotten such a trial” if it had “declined to pay the forfeiture and preserved its opportunity for a de novo jury trial if the government sought to collect.” Instead, Verizon chose to pay the fine “and seek immediate review in our Court.”

By contrast, the 5th Circuit decision in AT&T’s favor said the FCC “acted as prosecutor, jury, and judge,” violating the right to a jury trial. The 5th Circuit said it was guided by the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

The 2nd Circuit ruling said there are key differences between US telecom law and the securities laws considered in Jarkesy. It’s because of those differences that Verizon had the option of declining to pay the penalty and preserving its right to a jury trial, the court said.

In the Jarkesy case, the problem “was that the SEC could ‘siphon’ its securities fraud claims away from Article III courts and compel payment without a jury trial,” the 2nd Circuit panel said. “The FCC’s forfeiture order, however, does not, by itself, compel payment. The government needs to initiate a collection action to do that. Against this backdrop, the agency’s proceedings before a § 504(a) trial create no Seventh Amendment injury.”

Court rejects Verizon claim that selling location data without consent is legal Read More »

Trump’s DOJ seems annoyed about having to approve T-Mobile’s latest merger

AT&T, Policy, T-Mobile, us cellular, verizon / Kris Guyer / July 12, 2025

DOJ approval “reads like a complaint”

The DOJ’s unusual statement about the wireless industry oligopoly shows that the Justice Department staff and antitrust chief “clearly did not want to approve this,” stated Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. The press release “reads like a complaint,” not an announcement of a merger approval, he added.

Daniel Hanley, senior legal analyst at the Open Markets Institute, said that “Slater could easily make a public comment or resign in protest. If she isn’t allowed to do the job Congress entrusted her with, then she can leave with her principles intact.” The Trump administration is failing to enforce antitrust laws “even when encountering a blatantly unlawful action that could result in a gov win,” he wrote.

The cable industry, which has been competing for mobile customers, issued a statement in response to the DOJ’s approval of T-Mobile’s transaction. “While cable broadband providers are aggressively investing to deliver real mobile competition, cost savings, and other benefits to millions of wireless consumers, the Big 3 are continuing their desperate attempts to thwart this new competition through aggressive spectrum stockpiling strategies,” cable lobby group NCTA said while urging policymakers to promote competition and fight excessive concentration of spectrum licenses.

Despite approving the T-Mobile deal, Slater said in her statement that the DOJ investigation “raised concerns about competition in the relevant markets for mobile wireless services and the availability of wireless spectrum needed to fuel competition and entry.”

US Cellular competed against the big carriers “by building networks, pricing plans, and service offerings that its customers valued, and which for many years the Big 3 often did not offer,” Slater said. “To the chagrin of its Big 3 competitors, US Cellular maintained a sizable customer base within its network footprint by virtue of its strong emphasis on transparency, integrity, and localized customer service. Accordingly, as part of its investigation, the Department considered the impact of the potential disappearance of the services offered to those customers of US Cellular—soon to become T-Mobile customers following the merger—that chose US Cellular over T-Mobile or its national competitors.”

Trump’s DOJ seems annoyed about having to approve T-Mobile’s latest merger Read More »

Verizon beats lawsuit from utility worker who said lead cables made him sick

lead cables, Policy, verizon / Tim Belzer / February 11, 2025

However, Ranjan found that Tiger lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. It is not clear that Tiger’s symptoms were caused by working with lead-covered cables, and everyone is exposed to lead to some degree, the ruling said.

“Given the naturally occurring lead levels in the environment and in our bodies, and the fact that individuals exposed to lead may not develop any lead-related conditions or symptoms at all, mere exposure to lead—and the mere presence of lead in one’s body—isn’t a concrete injury,” Ranjan wrote.

Verizon said in September 2023 that at sites described in the Wall Street Journal article, soil lead levels near Verizon cables were similar to lead levels in the surrounding area and did not pose a public health risk.

Verizon is also seeking dismissal of a similar lawsuit filed in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Verizon yesterday submitted a filing to the New Jersey federal court that cited the Pennsylvania ruling. Verizon said the plaintiffs in the two cases are represented by the same legal team and that the allegations are “virtually identical.”

Health claims not specific enough

Ranjan’s ruling said that “Tiger hasn’t alleged the presence of elevated levels of lead in his body,” and “has not taken any blood or bone testing to measure the amount of lead that is presently in his body. This is problematic because, as indicated by the articles cited to in the amended complaint, everyone is exposed to lead, due to its prevalence in the environment.” Ranjan continued:

Mr. Tiger might have a better argument if he had asserted conditions or non-common symptoms that are unique to or at least more consistent with elevated levels of lead in his body. But, despite his allegations that lead exposure can cause certain “catastrophic” health issues, such as reduced kidney function, neurological problems, cardiovascular problems, and cancer, he has not alleged that he suffers from these ailments or that they are even imminent.

And, from the complaint, the Court cannot tell the amount or extent of Mr. Tiger’s exposure to lead, e.g., whether, and the extent to which, the alleged exposure to Verizon’s lead cables increased his risk of contracting an illness or condition, such that it posed an unacceptable risk to his health, and whether there is a dangerous amount of lead in his body. Simply put, the Court requires more concrete confirmation that Mr. Tiger has suffered an injury—or is at imminent and substantial risk of suffering an illness—likely caused by exposure to lead.

In summary, the judge decided that the “complaint fails to plead any cognizable injury-in-fact” and that the “theories of injury in the context of this specific case are too conjectural and speculative.” Ranjan dismissed the complaint without prejudice and said in a footnote that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as a finding that Mr. Tiger lacks standing to bring any of his claims in state court.”

Verizon beats lawsuit from utility worker who said lead cables made him sick Read More »

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack

AT&T, Policy, salt typhoon, verizon / Kris Guyer / December 12, 2024

Telecom companies aren’t required to notify customers about every breach. A Federal Communications Commission order in December 2023 adopted a “harm-based notification trigger” in which “notification of a breach to consumers is not required in cases where a carrier can reasonably determine that no harm to customers is reasonably likely to occur as a result of the breach, or where the breach solely involves encrypted data and the carrier has definitive evidence that the encryption key was not also accessed, used, or disclosed.”

The FCC said that harm requiring notifications can include, but is not limited to, “financial harm, physical harm, identity theft, theft of services, potential for blackmail, the disclosure of private facts, the disclosure of contact information for victims of abuse, and other similar types of dangers.”

The FCC order argued that the harm-based standard would let carriers “focus their time, effort, and financial resources on the most important and potentially harmful incidents” and protect “customers from over-notification and notice fatigue, specifically in instances where the carrier has reasonably determined that no harm is likely to occur.”

Senator: Telecoms should tell customers

US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) this week criticized the carriers for having weak security and the FCC for “let[ting] phone companies write their own cybersecurity rules.” Wyden proposed legislation to beef up telecom security requirements.

A spokesperson for Wyden today said that carriers should notify the affected customers.

“Senator Wyden strongly supports the phone companies notifying their customers about the theft of their data,” the spokesperson told Ars. “Not only do Americans have a right to be told that their information was stolen, but this is useful information that could result in some consumers voting with their wallets and switching service to carriers that retain less data and or have better cybersecurity.”

Stanford University researchers collected and studied telephone metadata for a 2016 paper to determine how it could be used against customers. “Using crowdsourced telephone logs and social networking information, we find that telephone metadata is densely interconnected, susceptible to reidentification, and enables highly sensitive inferences,” they wrote.

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack Read More »

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data

AT&T, FCC, Location Data, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / Paul Patrick / November 8, 2024

Supreme Court ruling could hurt FCC case

Both AT&T and Verizon cite the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that “when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.”

The Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed a 5th Circuit order, had not been issued yet when the FCC finalized its fines. The FCC disputed the 5th Circuit ruling, saying among other things that Supreme Court precedent made clear that “Congress can assign matters involving public rights to adjudication by an administrative agency ‘even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead.'”

Of course, the FCC will have a tougher time disputing the Jarkesy ruling now that the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit. Verizon pointed out that in the high court’s Jarkesy decision, “Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, recognized that Jarkesy was not limited to the SEC, identifying many agencies, including the FCC, whose practice of ‘impos[ing] civil penalties in administrative proceedings’ would be ‘upend[ed].'”

Verizon further argued: “As in Jarkesy, the fact that the FCC seeks ‘civil penalties… designed to punish’ is ‘all but dispositive’ of Verizon’s entitlement to an Article III court and a jury, rather than an agency prosecutor and adjudicator.”

Carriers: We didn’t get fair notice

Both carriers said the FCC did not provide “fair notice” that its section 222 authority over customer proprietary network information (CPNI) would apply to the data in question.

When it issued the fines, the FCC said carriers had fair notice. “CPNI is defined by statute, in relevant part, to include ‘information that relates to… the location… of a telecommunications service,'” the FCC said.

Verizon, AT&T tell courts: FCC can’t punish us for selling user location data Read More »

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users

AT&T, phone locking, Policy, T-Mobile, verizon / Kris Guyer / October 21, 2024

Carriers fight plan to require unlocking of phones 60 days after activation.

A smartphone wrapped in a metal chain and padlock

T-Mobile and AT&T say US regulators should drop a plan to require unlocking of phones within 60 days of activation, claiming that locking phones to a carrier’s network makes it possible to provide cheaper handsets to consumers. “If the Commission mandates a uniform unlocking policy, it is consumers—not providers—who stand to lose the most,” T-Mobile alleged in an October 17 filing with the Federal Communications Commission.

The proposed rule has support from consumer advocacy groups who say it will give users more choice and lower their costs. T-Mobile has been criticized for locking phones for up to a year, which makes it impossible to use a phone on a rival’s network. T-Mobile claims that with a 60-day unlocking rule, “consumers risk losing access to the benefits of free or heavily subsidized handsets because the proposal would force providers to reduce the line-up of their most compelling handset offers.”

If the proposed rule is enacted, “T-Mobile estimates that its prepaid customers, for example, would see subsidies reduced by 40 percent to 70 percent for both its lower and higher-end devices, such as the Moto G, Samsung A15, and iPhone 12,” the carrier said. “A handset unlocking mandate would also leave providers little choice but to limit their handset offers to lower cost and often lesser performing handsets.”

T-Mobile and other carriers are responding to a call for public comments that began after the FCC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in a 5–0 vote. The FCC is proposing “to require all mobile wireless service providers to unlock handsets 60 days after a consumer’s handset is activated with the provider, unless within the 60-day period the service provider determines the handset was purchased through fraud.”

When the FCC proposed the 60-day unlocking rule in July 2024, the agency criticized T-Mobile for locking prepaid phones for a year. The NPRM pointed out that “T-Mobile recently increased its locking period for one of its brands, Metro by T-Mobile, from 180 days to 365 days.”

T-Mobile’s policy says the carrier will only unlock mobile devices on prepaid plans if “at least 365 days… have passed since the device was activated on the T-Mobile network.”

“You bought your phone, you should be able to take it to any provider you want,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said when the FCC proposed the rule. “Some providers already operate this way. Others do not. In fact, some have recently increased the time their customers must wait until they can unlock their device by as much as 100 percent.”

T-Mobile locking policy more onerous

T-Mobile executives, who also argue that the FCC lacks authority to impose the proposed rule, met with FCC officials last week to express their concerns.

“T-Mobile is passionate about winning customers for life, and explained how its handset unlocking policies greatly benefit our customers,” the carrier said in its post-meeting filing. “Our policies allow us to deliver access to high-speed mobile broadband on a nationwide 5G network via handsets that are free or heavily discounted off the manufacturer’s suggested retail price. T-Mobile’s unlocking policies are transparent, and there is absolutely no evidence of consumer harm stemming from these policies. T-Mobile’s current unlocking policies also help T-Mobile combat handset theft and fraud by sophisticated, international criminal organizations.”

For postpaid users, T-Mobile says it allows unlocking of fully paid-off phones that have been active for at least 40 days. But given the 365-day lock on prepaid users, T-Mobile’s overall policy is more onerous than those of other carriers. T-Mobile has also faced angry customers because of a recent decision to raise prices on plans that were advertised as having a lifetime price lock.

AT&T enables unlocking of paid-off phones after 60 days for postpaid users and after six months for prepaid users. AT&T lodged similar complaints as T-Mobile, saying in an October 7 filing that the FCC’s proposed rules would “mak[e] handsets less affordable for consumers, especially those in low-income households,” and “exacerbate handset arbitrage, fraud, and trafficking. “

AT&T told the FCC that “requiring providers to unlock handsets before they are paid-off would ultimately harm consumers by creating upward pressure on handset prices and disincentives to finance handsets on flexible terms.” If the FCC implements any rules, it should maintain “existing contractual arrangements between customers and providers, ensure that providers have at least 180 days to detect fraud before unlocking a device, and include at least a 24-month period for providers to implement any new rules,” AT&T said.

Verizon, which already faces unlocking rules because of requirements imposed on spectrum licenses it owns, automatically unlocks phones after 60 days for prepaid and postpaid users. Among the three major carriers, Verizon is the most amenable to the FCC’s new rules.

Consumer groups: Make Verizon rules industry-wide

An October 18 filing supporting a strict unlocking rule was submitted by numerous consumer advocacy groups including Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Consumer Reports, the National Consumers League, the National Consumer Law Center, and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

“Wireless users are subject to unnecessary restrictions in the form of locked devices, which tie them to their service providers even when better options may be available. Handset locking practices limit consumer freedom and lessen competition by creating an artificial technological barrier to switching providers,” the groups said.

The groups cited the Verizon rules as a model and urged the FCC to require “that device unlocking is truly automatic—that is, unlocked after the requisite time period without any additional actions of the consumer.” Carriers should not be allowed to lock phones for longer than 60 days even when a phone is on a financing plan with outstanding payments, the groups’ letter said:

Providers should be required to transition out of selling devices without this [automatic unlocking] capability and the industry-wide rule should be the same as the one protecting Verizon customers today: after the expiration of the initial period, the handset must automatically unlock regardless of whether: (1) the customer asks for the handset to be unlocked or (2) the handset is fully paid off. Removing this barrier to switching will make the standard simple for consumers and encourage providers to compete more vigorously on mobile service price, quality, and innovation.

In an October 2 filing, Verizon said it supports “a uniform approach to handset unlocking that allows all wireless providers to lock wireless handsets for a reasonable period of time to limit fraud and to enable device subsidies, followed by automatic unlocking absent evidence of fraud.”

Verizon said 60 days should be the minimum for postpaid devices so that carriers have time to detect fraud and theft, and that “a longer, 180-day locking period for prepaid is necessary to enable wireless providers to continue offering subsidies that make phones affordable for prepaid customers.” Regardless of what time frame the FCC chooses, Verizon said “a uniform unlocking policy that applies to all providers… will benefit both consumers and competition.”

FCC considers impact on phone subsidies

While the FCC is likely to impose an unlocking rule, one question is whether it will apply when a carrier has provided a discounted phone. The FCC’s NPRM asked the public for “comment on the impact of a 60-day unlocking requirement in connection with service providers’ incentives to offer discounted handsets for postpaid and prepaid service plans.”

The FCC acknowledged Verizon’s argument “that providers may rely on handset locking to sustain their ability to offer handset subsidies and that such subsidies may be particularly important in prepaid environments.” But the FCC noted that public interest groups “argue that locked handsets tied to prepaid plans can disadvantage low-income customers most of all since they may not have the resources to switch service providers or purchase new handsets.”

The public interest groups also note that unlocked handsets “facilitate a robust secondary market for used devices, providing consumers with more affordable options,” the NPRM said.

The FCC says it can impose phone-unlocking rules using its legal authority under Title III of the Communications Act “to protect the public interest through spectrum licensing and regulations to require mobile wireless service providers to provide handset unlocking.” The FCC said it previously relied on the same Title III authority when it imposed the unlocking rules on 700 MHz C Block spectrum licenses purchased by Verizon.

T-Mobile told the FCC in a filing last month that “none of the litany of Title III provisions cited in the NPRM support the expansive authority asserted here to regulate consumer handsets (rather than telecommunications services).” T-Mobile also said that “the Commission’s legal vulnerabilities on this score are only magnified in light of recent Supreme Court precedent.”

The Supreme Court recently overturned the 40-year-old Chevron precedent that gave agencies like the FCC judicial deference when interpreting ambiguous laws. The end of Chevron makes it harder for agencies to issue regulations without explicit authorization from Congress. This is a potential problem for the FCC in its fight to revive net neutrality rules, which are currently blocked by a court order pending the outcome of litigation.

T-Mobile, AT&T oppose unlocking rule, claim locked phones are good for users Read More »