Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here.
Summary:
- Plan Cost: $65/month
- iPhone 16e Price: $599 - $300 = $299
- Total Before Tax: $299 (phone) + $65 (plan) = $364
- Unlocking: Use service for 1 month, then keep the second month idle → Phone unlocks.
- Number Options: Get a new number or port out an existing one.
- Bonus Credit: Keep the number active for 12 months → Get an extra $300 credit.
Limited time offer. While supplies last. Device taxes and fees apply. Requires new, single line activation or upgrade on Platinum Unlimited Plan or higher. Must stay on the Platinum Unlimited plan for 12 mos. to receive all credits; credits will drop if you change plans or fail to continuously maintain active service. Savings based on full retail cost of device. Not available on extended plans. Limit one device per account.
Leave a Comment
Top Comments
Plan Cost: $65/month
iPhone 16e Price: $599 - $300 = $299
Total Before Tax: $299 (phone) + $65 (plan) = $364
Unlocking: Use service for 1 month, then keep the second month idle → Phone unlocks.
Number Options: Get a new number or port out an existing one.
Bonus Credit: Keep the number active for 12 months → Get an extra $300 credit.
Activated March 3
April 2, deactivated
checked earlier today was locked
added another month $30 today
May 2 reactivated
Unlocked no sim restrictions after a couple hours.
1,527 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank WiseSweater2885
activated phone on march 4th
called unlocking department 1-888-442-5102 1st call was hung up on. called back talked to a supervisor who would do nothing.
got a return call in response to fcc complaint and was hung up on.
got an email in response to fcc complaint:
"We are writing you from Tracfone Corporate Office in regards of the FCC complaint we received from you.
We are responding to your recent inquiry regarding the carrier unlocking request for your phone.
As per conversation, we informed you that Straight Talk Wireless' unlocking policy is subject to change at anytime without advance notice. Straight Talk Wireless reserves the right to apply it retroactively. Thus, we cannot override this unlocking policy.
Unfortunately, your phone does not meet the eligibility criteria for carrier unlocking as 60 days of paid and active service have not been satisfied. We would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced.
If more assistance, please contact us at 1-888-251-8169, enter PIN or ext. 1120, we are open 7 days a week from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM MST."
keep those fcc complaints coming!
Better yet just email arbitration
update may 7th
BBB complaint gets directed to 1-888-251-8169 Ext. 1900. For your convenience, our representatives are available Monday-Sunday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM EST.
representative says have to do three security checks 1. send a text message 2. pin 3. give two phone numbers called. representative laughed twice at me during the call and said will get back in 72 hours
look up and sent an email to Hans vestberg verizon wireless
An unlock rep kept talking over me, telling me they can change their policy at any time. While yes I agree with that, that doesn't mean they can use that change against people who signed up under the expressed policy/expectation of where we'd fall. While they may not agree with why we signed up, we didn't violate any policies. I think the 16e was such a hot seller at $300 they decided to do that in order to take advantage/extort more $ out of us. While we may seem like we're taking advantage of the company, we 100% followed their rules and didn't violate anything. The only violation was them with their bait & switch to extort more $.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank CorNut
Promissory estoppel could be a potentially strong legal argument. Here's why:
Clear and unambiguous promise: When we signed up in March and read the unlock policy, that policy (as we understood it - 60 days after activation) constituted a clear promise from Straight Talk regarding the conditions under which our phones would be unlocked.
Reasonable and foreseeable reliance: It was reasonable for us to rely on that existing unlock policy when we decided to purchase our phones and activate service with Straight Talk. The ability to eventually unlock our phones is a significant factor for many consumers when choosing a mobile service. Straight Talk could reasonably foresee that customers would rely on their stated unlock policy.
Detrimental reliance: We acted to our detriment by purchasing the phones and subscribing to Straight Talk's service based on the understanding of the unlock policy at that time. Now, due to the subsequent policy change, we are being asked to pay more (for additional months of service) to receive the benefit (unlocking) that we believed we'd receive under the original terms. The forced purchase of extra service is a direct financial detriment.
Injustice if the promise is not enforced: It would likely be considered unjust if Straight Talk were allowed to change the rules of the game after we had already acted in reliance on their initial promise. Allowing them to retroactively apply a stricter policy would undermine the trust between consumers and service providers.
Why the lack of notice about the future change is key: The policy we read at signup made no mention of an impending April 1st change. For promissory estoppel to apply, the promise needs to be clear at the time it was made. If Straight Talk had disclosed when signing up that the unlock policy was going to change on April 1st, it would weaken our promissory estoppel argument because we'd have had notice of the change.
In summary, the elements of promissory estoppel seem to be present in this situation:
Straight Talk made a promise (the unlock policy in effect in March).
we reasonably relied on that promise by purchasing their service and phones.
We suffered a detriment (being forced to buy extra service) due to their subsequent change of that promise.
It would be unjust to allow Straight Talk to go back on their initial promise without any prior notice.
Therefore, when we articulate our complaints to the BBB and FCC, framing our arguments around the fact that we relied on the unlock policy that was in place at the time of signup and that the retroactive application of the new policy is causing us financial harm, will likely resonate with the principles of promissory estoppel and fair business practices.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Promissory estoppel could be a potentially strong legal argument. Here's why:
Clear and unambiguous promise: When we signed up in March and read the unlock policy, that policy (as we understood it - 60 days after activation) constituted a clear promise from Straight Talk regarding the conditions under which our phones would be unlocked.
Reasonable and foreseeable reliance: It was reasonable for us to rely on that existing unlock policy when we decided to purchase our phones and activate service with Straight Talk. The ability to eventually unlock our phones is a significant factor for many consumers when choosing a mobile service. Straight Talk could reasonably foresee that customers would rely on their stated unlock policy.
Detrimental reliance: We acted to our detriment by purchasing the phones and subscribing to Straight Talk's service based on the understanding of the unlock policy at that time. Now, due to the subsequent policy change, we are being asked to pay more (for additional months of service) to receive the benefit (unlocking) that we believed we'd receive under the original terms. The forced purchase of extra service is a direct financial detriment.
Injustice if the promise is not enforced: It would likely be considered unjust if Straight Talk were allowed to change the rules of the game after we had already acted in reliance on their initial promise. Allowing them to retroactively apply a stricter policy would undermine the trust between consumers and service providers.
Why the lack of notice about the future change is key: The policy we read at signup made no mention of an impending April 1st change. For promissory estoppel to apply, the promise needs to be clear at the time it was made. If Straight Talk had disclosed when signing up that the unlock policy was going to change on April 1st, it would weaken our promissory estoppel argument because we'd have had notice of the change.
In summary, the elements of promissory estoppel seem to be present in this situation:
Straight Talk made a promise (the unlock policy in effect in March).
we reasonably relied on that promise by purchasing their service and phones.
We suffered a detriment (being forced to buy extra service) due to their subsequent change of that promise.
It would be unjust to allow Straight Talk to go back on their initial promise without any prior notice.
Therefore, when we articulate our complaints to the BBB and FCC, framing our arguments around the fact that we relied on the unlock policy that was in place at the time of signup and that the retroactive application of the new policy is causing us financial harm, will likely resonate with the principles of promissory estoppel and fair business practices.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank NotVeryAnonymousHere
https://consumercomplai
Phone Issues -> Equipment -> Device Unlocking.
I appreciate this and used some of the language. In case anyone else wants to include it, here's the March 7th archive link to their terms: https://web.archive.org/web/20250...rtal/home/
Total_Wireless
•39m ago
Total Wireless Employee
Hello, there. For clarification, devices activated before April 1, 2025, the unlocking eligibility remains 60 days post-activation. However, with our updated policy effective April 1, 2025, devices activated on or after this date will be eligible for free unlocking after 60 days of paid activation and 60 days of continuous paid active service.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TotalWir...are_
and
Total_Wireless
•18m ago
Total Wireless Employee
In accordance with the previous policy, devices become eligible for unlocking after a period of 60 days from the date of activation.
That said, I'm relentless and won't stop until I get my $ back. So far, I've filed with FCC (informal) & FTC. BBB is less important but I'll be doing that as well.
I already know the informal FCC complaint won't go anywhere, but I'll escalate it when Straight Talk responds to tell me to kick rocks. We have standing, just because they say policies are subject to change doesn't mean they can execute it the way they did. That old unlock policy was changed for 1 reason, the 16e sold like crazy. That's where the "reasonable and foreseeable reliance" comes into play. They know reasonable people were buying it knowing it'd unlock after 60 days, they could foresee that so they changed the policy in a way that "surprise" gets them more $ lol... They can't hide behind one sentence that says "subject to change". I mean we sign waivers when we go to the Dr but you can still sue for malpractice. I know that's a bit extreme of comparison but you get the idea. "Reasonable" is the important word here, what would any "reasonable" person feel like they're going to get from the terms they signed up during. The timing is just too good for their "policy change" announced right after all of us activated our devices.
That said, I'm relentless and won't stop until I get my $ back. So far, I've filed with FCC (informal) & FTC. BBB is less important but I'll be doing that as well.
I already know the informal FCC complaint won't go anywhere, but I'll escalate it when Straight Talk responds to tell me to kick rocks. We have standing, just because they say policies are subject to change doesn't mean they can execute it the way they did. That old unlock policy was changed for 1 reason, the 16e sold like crazy. That's where the "reasonable and foreseeable reliance" comes into play. They know reasonable people were buying it knowing it'd unlock after 60 days, they could foresee that so they changed the policy in a way that "surprise" gets them more $ lol... They can't hide behind one sentence that says "subject to change". I mean we sign waivers when we go to the Dr but you can still sue for malpractice. I know that's a bit extreme of comparison but you get the idea. "Reasonable" is the important word here, what would any "reasonable" person feel like they're going to get from the terms they signed up during. The timing is just too good for their "policy change" announced right after all of us activated our devices.
Completely ludicrous and unlawful. It'll never hold up in court and they know it.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Leave a Comment