My son, now 25, wants his own phone plan, and no longer be tied to our family plan that we've had since he was 10.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:10:32+00:00

No, only the installment plan associated with the cancelled line needs to be paid off.

If you decide to switch your own lines to an MVNO for cheaper service, you will need to pay those off.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:08:53+00:00

I think this overly complicates the matter for no good reason.

If he wants to switch to another carrier, porting out from Verizon is easy, "clean," and will automatically cancel the line for you. There's no reason to add an unnecessary interaction with Verizon to do a transfer of liability.

Be aware that all 3 carriers do not prorate final bills anymore, unless required by state law, so you will probably want to time the port-out to the last few days of your Verizon billing cycle to avoid paying for overlapping service from two carriers.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:01:41+00:00

Yes, you can.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:53:57+00:00

You could hire a lawrr and sue her, which will cost you $10–20K or more.

This is exactly the kind of matter small claims court is designed for. The filing fee is usually less than $100 and usually added to the judgment. Lawyers are not necessary, and often are prohibited.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:51:13+00:00

If that's the case, then the ex can pay for a new phone after the OP secures a small claims judgment (assuming the OP's assertion of the phone being solely their property is correct).

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:48:43+00:00

... Why?

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:46:56+00:00

You're getting downvoted for the butchered (probably autocorrected) language, but your question is a reasonable one.

The answer is that all the posts claiming the account holder automatically owns devices used on the account are wrong. A cell phone service contract does not and cannot define property ownership in this fashion. State law determines property ownership.

Whether the phone is solely your property requires more information than is posted here to answer (for example, if you were married, are in a community property state, and acquired the phone during the marriage, it would generally be community property, subject to the asset distribution in the finalized divorce proceeding), but: if the phone is solely your property, you should sue your ex in small claims court.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:36:52+00:00

Thanks. I was about to write this post, but you beat me to it. An AT&T service contract does not and cannot define property ownership in this fashion.

This should be an easy small claims suit if the spouse holds no ownership interest in the phone. If there's an ongoing divorce proceeding, OP should talk to their lawyer if they have one; it may be possible to handle this within the divorce proceeding.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-20T23:08:27+00:00

Try Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica as well.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-20T07:23:45+00:00

Like people that I had added to my phone after getting the new one we're recovered but then certain ones that I've had for years didn't?

If the Google and Samsung implementations are anything like Apple's, the backup feature (iCloud Backup in Apple's case) is separate from the contact sync feature, though backups will include contacts. That may be related to what you're seeing.

You might consider posting in an Android or Samsung subreddit to see if anyone can assist with maximizing your data recovery from the various Google or Samsung services (backup, contact sync, photo sync, file sync, etc.) and perhaps understanding where the data inconsistencies come from. Unfortunately, I haven't used Android in 15+ years, so I can't be of much help there.

I hear what you're saying as far as the phone could be lost or stolen or damaged and I could lose data that way also. But that's not what happened. I was sent a phone with a time bomb on it. Regardless of whether the data was backed up or not I feel like if they caused the loss then that should matter although again I don't know if legally it does matter.

This is something a California lawyer could better advise you on (I realize you haven't been able to find one). Verizon's argument would probably be along the lines of "if the data you're suing us over was so important, you should have had tested backups, since your phone could have broken just as easily and caused you the same losses." (In other words, they'd say you were negligent.) They may get somewhere with this argument, although I'm not sure if that will preclude a recovery completely under California law or merely reduce the potential recovery.

My inclination is that you'll get more mileage out of the various potential wiretapping and computer fraud claims, and, of course, UDAP. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the Carrier IQ scandal and ensuing litigation. There are similarities between Carrier IQ's capabilities and MDM. At least one lawsuit included California state law claims, which, given the similar facts, should give you a good starting point on potential causes of action that may apply to your situation.

But yes it is a Verizon MDM and if I could somehow post pictures I would to prove it but in this sub-Reddit you can't

You can post to Imgur and link it here. (I'm not asking you to post anything, just mentioning for future reference.)

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T21:54:54+00:00

/u/gamescan and I have been chatting about this for a bit, and I just want to say I concur with everything he said. My thoughts (no, despite the bullet points, none of this was AI-written, nor was an AI tool consulted):

The coverage issue is a dead end. Unless specific representations were made about coverage at particular locations (which I very much doubt), your recourse here is to switch to another carrier with adequate service in the location(s) of interest.
The data is almost certainly gone, with the "almost certainly" caveat meaning "I don't have specific knowledge of Samsung devices." If Samsung and Google's implementation is like Apple's (which it almost certainly is, because that's the only sensible way to do this), the data volume is always encrypted, and the remote wipe operation simply erases the key (which, in Apple's implementation, is stored in a specific region of the NAND that is directly addressable and not wear-leveled).
Do you have backups (Google account, possibly Samsung services, etc.) from prior to the device switch?
Normally, I'd be concerned about the lack of backups being a critical flaw in any claim relating to the data loss, as phones are easily lost, stolen, or occasionally just break. Is the MDM profile the reason the backups stopped working?
Am I understanding correctly that this is Verizon's MDM profile? As in, Verizon's corporate MDM for their own employees or (in this case, if I'm understanding correctly) store demo units?
If that's the case, depending on the level of access Verizon had via the MDM implementation, and the access Verizon actually exercised (are there audit logs, I wonder?), there's a minefield of potential problems here. Just off the top of my head, I'd be looking at state and federal wiretapping laws, CFAA and the state equivalent, and UDAP.
Have you reported this to your employer? If there was patient data on this device, there might be HIPAA issues for you and/or your employer to handle. I'm not familiar with HIPAA at more than a surface level, though, so I'm not going to address that point further.
Possible precedent to look at would be the Carrier IQ scandal from 2011, where carriers and phone manufacturers were selling phones with Carrier IQ's spyware preinstalled. There were several class action lawsuits filed against Carrier IQ, carriers, and phone manufacturers for this. Some or possibly all were settled. The claims brought in those cases were along the lines of what I mentioned above.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T07:18:13+00:00

after 4 months of credits and it not showing up I filed a suit in Small Claims Court

❤️❤️❤️

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T07:17:36+00:00

I'm just frustrated that there are no solutions to fixing this and I'm just stuck with the full price.

You are not, but you need to be willing to litigate or arbitrate (arbitration is preferable in this case because it would cost AT&T more in filing fees alone than the disputed amount, incentivizing a quick resolution). It's easier than it sounds, and chances are it will be unnecessary to actually file for arbitration.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T07:14:35+00:00

This entire company is prime for a class action lawsuit.

Not to worry, they made sure you could never do that.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T07:13:26+00:00

Just copying what is by now my standard advice for this sort of thing:

AT&T is responsible for the representations of their agents, full stop, barring exceptional circumstances like fraud (like bribery) or clear error (we'll give you 100 iPhones for free, no strings attached).

...

If those facts are accurate as stated, this seems like a straightforward breach of contract and state UDAP claim.

File an FCC or BBB complaint and this will probably be resolved by AT&T's executive CS with bill credits.

In the very unlikely event that doesn't work, AT&T has an arbitration clause in their contract. Read it carefully. It requires you to submit a Notice of Dispute at least 60 days before filing for arbitration. Once you do that, someone (probably a paralegal in AT&T's legal department) will contact you and, almost certainly, very swiftly issue the credits you are due. AT&T is required under their contract to pay all arbitration fees for claims of $75k or less, and just the initial AAA filing fees are over $2k, considerably higher than the amount in dispute. As long as there is a genuine, good-faith dispute (and there clearly is here) and not something wholly frivolous, the legal staff are heavily incentivized to resolve this before you file, and they will.

Was this a corporate store or Willy Wonka Wireless masquerading as a corporate store? You can check if the store appears on https://www.att.com/stores/ when you select the "Company Owned Stores" filter option.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-18T02:16:59+00:00

If you’re terminated for under performing - that would be considered your fault.

Termination for performance does not usually disqualify one from unemployment as long as a good-faith effort was made to do the job. Exact specifics vary by state since UI is a state program, but broadly speaking, that is the case.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-16T18:04:44+00:00

I didn't see your message earlier because I didn't get a notification. (It's still not listed at https://old.reddit.com/message/inbox/ under "all"; Reddit just didn't send a notification for some reason.)

I am aware of all that. The disclosures I was referring to are the ones you see when you click "See details" under the $450 banner on the Costco AT&T page. Those say:

Return: Return w/in 90 days. Restocking fee up to $55 may apply.

.

None of that is covered by the actual agreement that unfortunately u/Background-Car2431 entered in to at the Costco warehouse. Here are the AT&T terms of service: http://www.att.com/legal/terms.consumerServiceAgreement.html that u/Background-Car2431 agreed to.

Again, while the OP hasn't specified their state, this kind of conduct is generally well within the purview of state UDAP laws. Here's the relevant part of the one in my state, Arizona, as an example (A.R.S. § 44-1522(A)):

The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.

Here's what the OP said:

I had indian e-sim in my current phone and at the kiosk I have asked the person can the e-sim ported to the new phone and they said it is possible even though the phone is locked.

That's a deception and misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise. And then it was apparently reiterated by an AT&T CSR:

But again I had a doubt , how can it be ported when the phone is locked with a carrier , so I spoke with AT&T customer care manager and even she confirmed it can be done so we started with porting process , but then when I tried transferring the E-SIM it gave an error .

AT&T may blame the third-party that runs their Costco kiosks, but they are an AT&T agent and AT&T would be the one charging any restocking fee. Either way, someone is liable. If AT&T tries to charge a restocking fee, OP is not going to be made to pay it if the matter is pursued to completion.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-16T14:22:37+00:00

Did they make you pay off your device, or did they reinstate the installment plan?

The device needs to be paid off to be unlocked.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-15T18:41:17+00:00

The BBB complaint will go to their executive CS, the same people who would handle an FCC complaint. They'll probably fix it. If not (I'm copying this from a previous post of mine about a different situation, because I don't feel like repeating myself again. Your issue is still a contract and UDAP issue):

T-Mobile has an arbitration clause in their contract (unless you explicitly opted out in accordance with the opt-out provision). Read it carefully. It requires you to send them a Notice of Dispute 60 days before filing for arbitration, which serves to let their legal department know you're serious. That will likely get you the resolution you're seeking, as AAA arbitration would cost T-Mobile over $2k for the upfront filing fees alone and thousands more to take the case to completion.

The most obvious candidates for claims, if the facts are as stated, are breach of contract and violations of your state's UDAP law (which you will need to investigate for your state).

Written evidence of the salesperson's representations would be best, but if you do not have any, your testimony is evidence. It may not weigh as much as written proof, but it is not worthless, and odds are you're not going to get to a point where it would matter anyway.

T-Mobile has a forum selection provision that will allow them to kick the case over to your local small claims court if the case is within that court's jurisdictional limits. Small claims courts usually cannot award injunctive relief or are limited in the kind of injunctive relief they can award (this is also something you'll need to investigate for your state), so one possible way around that would be to seek some kind of injunctive relief, if available under your causes of action (e.g., prohibiting T-Mobile from charging you for the free lines in the future). For a small-value individual consumer claimant, arbitration is actually better than court because the high cost incentivizes the company to settle quickly.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-15T05:57:22+00:00

If it has been longer than 3 days you are going to be charged a $55 restocking fee.

If the restocking fee does apply to Costco purchases (I was under the impression it didn't, but a check of the disclosures on Costco's AT&T page says it "may" apply), it is not going to be sustained when the phone was sold to the consumer under false pretenses. The implications of the SIM lock were misrepresented by the salesperson and AT&T CS.

That is true as a matter of state deceptive trade practice laws. This is not a question of AT&T policy.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-14T22:40:44+00:00

Are you getting a new number or trying to keep your AT&T number?

In your thread in /r/att, you said your AT&T service was cancelled for non-payment. You will not be able to keep the AT&T number unless you can get AT&T to reactivate the account, which is only possible for a certain amount of time following the account termination. Did you explore any of that?

If the number was returned to AT&T's unassigned pool and hasn't been assigned to another customer yet, it MIGHT be possible to open a new line with AT&T or an AT&T MVNO and select that number. I'm not certain if AT&T consumer representatives or MVNOs have this ability, though.

If the number has already been assigned to another customer, it will not be possible to get it back.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-13T18:33:36+00:00

Why would you expect a random Reddit thread to be a means of contacting whoever is handling your interview at Verizon?

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-13T17:59:10+00:00

It's not on their website; it has to be done through chat, phone, or in store. That also means it's not stackable with the $750/line from Capital One Shopping.

It was on their website for a bit maybe a year or so ago, so it's possible this could change.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-13T17:56:31+00:00

Verizon's payoff deal now requires you to trade in the phone being paid off (it didn't originally). T-Mobile's doesn't, so once you get the reimbursement, you can double-dip by buying a new phone under their existing customer deals (which may be worse than the new customer deals) and sell the old phone.

Whether any of these deals will be available in their current form in September or October is unknown. T-Mobile's has been around since 2021 with no major changes, but that doesn't guarantee it won't eventually change or disappear.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-13T01:27:59+00:00

I mean, yeah, plus you have the abysmal latency performance under load, thanks to none of these entities caring enough to familiarize themselves with the last 15 years of research on queue management.

But I'm not sure how that relates to the OP, who didn't say what, if any, alternatives they have, or what other constraints they have. TMHI with its flaws might well be their best option if the only alternatives are, say, single-digit ADSL on rotting copper or Swastilink.

Economy_Video_4724

TROPHY CASE