Verizon has shifted its phone-unlocking policy away from a stricter, federally mandated timeline and toward a looser industry framework, making it harder for customers to free their devices for use on rival networks. The change traces back to a federal waiver that released Verizon from a special 60-day unlock requirement tied to its wireless spectrum licenses. For subscribers who assumed they could quickly unlock a new phone after purchase, the practical effect is a longer wait and more conditions to satisfy before switching carriers.
How the 60-Day Rule Disappeared
Verizon’s unlocking obligations were originally tied to conditions the FCC attached to its purchase of Upper 700 MHz C Block spectrum. Those conditions required the carrier to keep its network open and give customers relatively fast access to unlocked devices, and a filing by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in an FCC docket emphasized that any handset locking should be narrowly tailored to combat theft and fraud while preserving accelerated unlocking for legitimate buyers. In practice, that framework translated into a 60-day ceiling on how long Verizon could keep a new handset locked, a timeline that was noticeably shorter and clearer than what other major carriers offered.
A waiver granted to Verizon changed that equation by freeing the company from those C Block–specific conditions and allowing it to align with the broader industry. Instead of the carrier-specific 60-day mandate, Verizon was permitted to adopt the voluntary unlocking principles published by the wireless industry’s main trade group. Under those principles, carriers can define their own eligibility criteria, which may include completing a full installment plan, passing a credit review, maintaining an account in good standing, or waiting out a contract period that stretches well beyond 60 days. The result is that Verizon now operates under the same broad rules as AT&T and T-Mobile rather than a tighter, FCC-enforced standard that guaranteed early unlocks for most customers.
What the CTIA Voluntary Code Actually Says
The framework Verizon now follows originated with a set of industry commitments announced by CTIA, the wireless trade association. In that announcement, carriers endorsed a series of voluntary principles that were billed as a way to give consumers “clear expectations” about unlocking. On paper, participating providers agreed to publish their policies in an accessible way, respond to unlock requests within two business days for eligible devices, and send notifications when a device qualifies for unlocking, either at the end of a contract term or after meeting other criteria.
The catch is that “voluntary” means exactly what it sounds like; there is no federal enforcement mechanism that compels a carrier to stick to a specific maximum lock period. Each company defines its own eligibility window, and those windows can be lengthy when tied to multi-year financing. A customer who finances a phone over 36 months, for example, may be required to pay off the entire balance before the carrier will process an unlock, even if the device is technically compatible with other networks. Because the CTIA principles do not cap how long a device can remain locked, Verizon and its peers retain wide discretion. That gap between the old C Block mandate and the new voluntary code is where Verizon customers lose ground. The 60-day ceiling has been replaced by conditions that can keep a handset locked for the full life of an installment agreement.
Legal Backdrop: Unlocking Is Legal, but Carriers Still Control the Lock
Federal law already permits consumers to unlock their phones, at least from the standpoint of copyright and anti-circumvention rules. Congress addressed this issue through the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, which restored the legal right to circumvent software locks on wireless devices without triggering liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That statute was a response to public backlash when an earlier Library of Congress decision had allowed DMCA claims against users who unlocked their own phones, and it clarified that consumers and certain third parties could perform unlocking without fear of criminal or civil penalties under that law.
But the act was narrow by design; it addressed only the legality of the unlocking process itself, not the contractual or technical control carriers maintain over the lock. The law does not require a provider to furnish an unlock code on any particular schedule, nor does it prevent companies from conditioning unlocks on account status, contract completion, or other business rules. This distinction matters because consumers often conflate the right to unlock with the ability to unlock. A phone owner may be legally entitled to use any compatible network, yet the carrier can still refuse to provide the necessary credentials until its own internal criteria are met. Verizon’s move from a specific FCC condition to the CTIA framework widens that practical gap. The statute sets a floor for consumer rights, but it leaves carriers free to build higher walls above it through device financing terms and network-lock policies, making mid-contract switching significantly harder in practice.
Verizon v. FCC at the Supreme Court
Separate from the unlocking policy itself, Verizon is pressing a broader challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s authority. A petition for Supreme Court review listed as Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC appears in the Court’s docket under number 25-567, with entries referencing prior proceedings and ongoing filings. While the docket materials focus on procedural steps rather than detailed argument summaries, the very existence of the case underscores that Verizon is contesting aspects of the FCC’s power to impose and enforce carrier-specific obligations.
Although the Supreme Court dispute is not limited to handset unlocking, its outcome could indirectly affect how much leverage the FCC retains to attach conditions like the old C Block rule to spectrum licenses or other regulatory approvals. If the Court ultimately narrows the agency’s authority or raises the bar for imposing bespoke requirements on individual carriers, future attempts to restore a strict 60-day unlocking mandate for Verizon could face steeper legal obstacles. For consumers, that would make the current voluntary industry framework more than just a temporary stopgap. It could become the effective ceiling on unlocking protections, with limited prospects for a return to a uniform, federally enforced standard that guarantees early device portability.
What This Means for Verizon Customers Right Now
For Verizon customers, the immediate implications are concrete. A buyer who takes advantage of device financing should assume that the phone will remain locked until the installment balance is fully paid and any other carrier-defined conditions are met. There is no longer a special federal rule forcing Verizon to unlock a handset within a fixed number of days, and the trade group framework the carrier now follows does not impose binding deadlines or maximum lock durations. That reality can be especially frustrating for people who want to switch providers because of coverage issues, billing disputes, or promotional offers that arise well before their payment plan ends.
One common assumption worth challenging is that all major carriers treat unlocking the same way. Before the waiver, Verizon was the outlier with a relatively consumer-friendly 60-day limit anchored in its spectrum license obligations, while rivals operated under more flexible timelines built around their own contracts and financing structures. By stepping back into the general CTIA framework, Verizon has effectively normalized its practices with the rest of the industry, eliminating a point of differentiation that once made it easier for customers to move a device to another network early in its life. For anyone considering a new phone on Verizon today, the safest course is to review the carrier’s current unlocking terms in detail before purchase, weigh those conditions against how likely you are to switch providers during the life of the device, and factor that reduced portability into the overall cost of signing up.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
