A Kansas consumer who says Verizon wouldn’t unlock a prepaid iPhone after the federally required waiting period took the fight to small claims court—and won.
Patrick Roach, a Sedgwick County resident, bought a discounted Straight Talk iPhone (a TracFone/Verizon brand) on February 28, 2025 as a birthday gift for his wife. His plan was simple: activate the phone for a month, cancel service, wait for the automatic unlock, then move it to US Mobile, the carrier the couple already used.
Under the unlocking rules tied to Verizon’s FCC obligations—and Straight Talk’s policy at the time—Roach believed the phone should unlock 60 days after activation, even if he didn’t keep paying for continuous service.
It didn’t.
The dispute: 60 days after activation vs. 60 days of paid service
Roach activated the phone, waited 60 days, and then attempted to use it on another network. According to Roach and court records, the device remained locked.
Straight Talk’s position was that a newer requirement applied: devices would unlock only after “60 days of paid active service.” Roach had paid for a single month.
The core issue wasn’t just the denial—it was timing. Roach argued he bought the phone under one set of terms, but the company attempted to apply a later policy change to his earlier purchase.
Why the FCC rules matter
Verizon is in a different position than other carriers because of FCC conditions tied to its 700 MHz C Block spectrum obligations and the FCC’s 2019 waiver that allows Verizon to lock phones for a limited period.
That waiver permits a 60-day lock, then requires Verizon to automatically unlock the handset when the countdown ends—without the customer needing to ask and regardless of whether the phone is paid off. The FCC order also describes a narrow exception tied to suspected fraud within the 60-day window.
Those conditions were later extended—under specified circumstances—to certain devices sold through TracFone brands that operate on Verizon’s network and support remote unlocking.
The small-claims win
Roach filed in small claims court. The defendant in the case was TracFone Wireless, Inc., doing business as Straight Talk Wireless (a Verizon-owned unit).
In an October 2025 decision, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Henry ruled in Roach’s favor under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, finding that changing the unlocking requirements after purchase effectively altered what Roach thought he was buying.
The court ordered a refund of $410.40 (the amount Roach paid for the device), plus court-related costs and service fees.
Roach said Verizon also offered a settlement—$600 plus court fees—but he rejected it because he didn’t want an agreement that restricted him from speaking publicly about what happened.
A broader fight over unlocking rules
Roach also filed a complaint with the FCC, saying the “paid service” requirement conflicts with the FCC’s 60-day framework. Roach says he hasn’t seen meaningful FCC action on that complaint so far.
Meanwhile, Verizon has asked the FCC to relax the 60-day rule, arguing longer lock periods are needed to reduce fraud. Consumer groups including Public Knowledge have opposed the request, warning that longer locks make it harder for customers—especially prepaid buyers—to switch carriers.
Roach’s case adds a consumer-facing datapoint to that policy debate: if unlocking expectations can shift midstream, buyers chasing legitimate discounts can end up stuck with a device that doesn’t work for the purpose they bought it for.