What's happened
A Kansas court ruled in favor of Roach, who sued Verizon after it refused to unlock his phone within FCC-mandated timeframes. Verizon's new policy requiring 60 days of paid service contradicts federal rules, prompting a legal challenge and FCC complaint.
What's behind the headline?
Verizon's policy shift reveals a strategic attempt to extend control over device unlocking, potentially undermining FCC regulations. The court's ruling emphasizes that Verizon's retroactive policy change violates consumer rights and FCC mandates. This case highlights ongoing tensions between telecom providers and regulatory bodies, with Verizon seeking to weaken federal unlocking requirements. The outcome could set a precedent, encouraging other consumers to challenge similar policies. Verizon's petition to eliminate the 60-day unlocking rule signals a broader industry push to restrict consumer flexibility, risking a rollback of consumer protections established since 2008. The case underscores the importance of regulatory enforcement and consumer advocacy in maintaining fair device unlocking practices.
What the papers say
Ars Technica reports that Roach's small claims court victory was based on Verizon's attempt to enforce a policy change after his purchase, which the court found unlawful. The article highlights Verizon's efforts to petition the FCC to remove the 60-day unlocking requirement, despite FCC rules mandating unlocking 60 days after activation. Business Insider UK notes Verizon's broader strategy to restrict unlocking and its legal challenges, contrasting with Roach's case and emphasizing the significance of FCC regulations. Both sources underscore the tension between Verizon's policies and federal consumer protections, illustrating a broader industry trend of pushing back against regulatory mandates.
How we got here
Roach purchased a discounted iPhone 16e from Verizon’s Straight Talk brand in February 2025, expecting it to be unlocked after 60 days per FCC rules. Verizon later changed its policy to require 60 days of paid service, which was not in effect at the time of purchase, leading to the dispute and legal action.
Go deeper
More on these topics