I think Verizon locks all phones purchased from them. They’ll unlock them after 30-60 days if you ask and don’t owe on the phone.
But why should that be the case at all? If someone gets a subsidized phone and runs away, charge them for the phone and send it to collections. Too many people doing that? Don’t give away phones so easily.
They lost on number portability. They’ve still got this (for now).
Removing the lock was difficult. My first call to Verizon was long and ended with a T2 lying to me that they’d removed the lock. My second call was shorter because I was insistent that I see the change on my end before hanging up. After about half an hour, the T2 gave up and escalated up to T4 and I saw the unlock confirmation via SMS.
The whole time they kept trying to make me promise I would not move the unlocked phone to new service, as if that were something owed them from my paid-in-full purchase on a no-contract line.
Most people would not have the time and knowledge to solve this, and the carriers know it.
Went into a store, they said I was being scammed by the seller and to only trust the store (they just wanted to sell me another phone). Phone support said they'd try a few things on their end but in the end the phone was still locked. I think I only ever got to T2.
They also said they had no record of the phone ever being activated in their system so I kinda suspect the seller was a verizon store doing shady stuff.
Ended up having to return the phone and fight over a "restocking" fee. Paid $40 more at a different seller for a fully unlocked phone even though by Verizon's own policies the first phone should've been unlockable. I wish there was something I could've done to hold Verizon and the seller accountable.
If it's not worth the time to document it maybe it's worth just letting go of.
But over a $40 difference to use a different seller, you're right, it's better to just let it go. I wouldn't even be going after Verizon with a chargeback, I'd be hurting the seller (who may or may not have been in cahoots with Verizon, I'll never know).
If you owe money on the phone, it's not your phone. Whoever you got it from should have the ability (technically and legally) to just brick it remotely.
If you have a loan on something, it's not yours. If you stop paying your car payment, they take it away. If you stop paying your mortgage, they kick you out. (And neither of these absolves your financial responsibility). I don't think it's particularly surprising to suggest that if you haven't paid for your phone yet, whoever gave it to you still owns it.
But I never suggested you can't "do with it as you wish" only that bricking the phone was a perfectly reasonable way to ensure that it was paid for in full in the example of someone getting a subsidized phone but wanting to switch carriers a few months in - which should be allowed, provided you pay back the subsidization.
12 states have 'non-recourse' mortgages, where if your mortgage is foreclosed on, the lender has no legal avenue to recover the difference if sale does not recover the principal.
More generally, what provides for recourse isn't the vague idea that 'you're still making payments'. It's a signed contract saying they can. No contract, no recourse. Contract terms for things like cars and homes are heavily regulated. Cell phones are getting there.
Sure if you owe someone $150,000 and have a net worth of $500,000 they'll take you to court. But over a cell phone, that probably is not going to happen.
Also when the debt is sent to collections the originator only gets about 1/10 the cost.
Under contract, the user has to pay the original company every month. It's actually GOOD for that company if the user takes his phone elsewhere, because now he has to pay for service he's not using. That's why locking the phone is mind-bogglingly stupid.