39–010 

1See Mobile Technology Fact Sheet, PEW RESEARCH INTERNET PROJECT (January 2014), 

http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet. 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–212 

UNLOCKING CONSUMER CHOICE AND WIRELESS 

COMPETITION ACT 

JULY 17, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 517] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 517), to promote consumer choice and wireless competition by 

permitting consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Background and Purpose of the Bill ............................................................ 1 

II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 5 

III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 5 

IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 7 

V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 8 

VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 8 

VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 9 

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL

A. BACKGROUND

As of January 2014, 90% of American adults own a cell phone, 

58% percent own a smartphone, and 40% own tablets.1 Wireless devices like cell phones, smart phones, and tablets empower consumers, facilitating communication, education, work, and entertainment for Americans of all ages. Network carriers that operate 

voice and data networks often sell these devices in conjunction with 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

2See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Guide: Mobile Phone and Device 

Unlocking FAQ’s, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (Feb. 24, 2014), http://www.fcc.gov/ 

device-unlocking-faq (‘‘Unless you purchased a phone or device specifically sold as ‘unlocked’ at 

the point of purchase, you should assume that it is locked to a specific service provider’s network. This is true whether you purchase the device from a service provider, at a general retail 

outlet (in person or on the web), or through a third-party.’’). 3 Consumer Code for Wireless Service, CTIA—The Wireless Association, http://www.ctia.org/ 

docs/default-source/default-document-library/ctia-consumer-code-for-wireless-service.pdf; see also 

Letter from Steve Largent, President and CEO, CTIA—The Wireless Association, to Thomas E. 

Wheeler, FCC Chairman, and Mignon L. Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel, Ajit Pai, & Michael P. 

O’Reilly, FCC Comm’rs (Dec. 12, 2013), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC324664A1.pdf. The carriers that established the unlocking principles have agreed to fully implement them by early 2015. The principles do not address questions related to unlocking phones 

by third parties for bulk resale. See Letter from Senators Richard A. Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Cory A. Booker, Mark R. Warner, and Edward J. Markey to Thomas E. Wheeler, FCC 

Chairman (April 29, 2014), www.blumenthal.senate.gov/download/letter-to-fcc-on-bulk-unlocking; 

Letter from Thomas E. Wheeler, FCC Chairman to Senator Richard A. Blumenthal (June 17, 

2014), www.blumenthal.senate.gov/download/fcc-reply-to-bulk-unlocking-letter-from-senblumenthal. 4See Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Consumer Guide: Mobile Phone and Device 

Unlocking FAQ’s, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (Feb. 24, 2014), http://www.fcc.gov/ 

device-unlocking-faq (‘‘Contact your mobile wireless service provider. Devices can be unlocked 

with unlock codes or other software updates provided to you by your provider. Some providers 

will complete the unlocking process in-store, others will unlock your device remotely and automatically.’’). 

service contracts, at a reduced cost in exchange for the consumer’s 

agreement to use the carrier’s voice or data plan for a predetermined period, often two years. Carriers typically place software on 

the device that prevents it from being used on another carrier’s 

network.2 This is often referred to as ‘‘locking’’ the device; efforts 

to alter this software are typically referred to as ‘‘unlocking’’ the 

device. 

Consumers whose contracts with their original carrier have expired, or who have otherwise complied with the applicable contractual terms, may wish to continue using their old devices with new 

carriers who may offer better prices or better coverage. Alternatively, they may wish to give their old phone to a family member 

or friend or sell it to another consumer. Smart phones and tablets, 

for example, can cost many hundreds of dollars—sometimes more 

than $500 each—and many consumers would like to choose which 

network they connect to without incurring the substantial cost of 

purchasing a brand new device. From 2006 until 2012, an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) expressly 

permitted cell phone users to ‘‘unlock’’ their cell phones when their 

contract expired, allowing them to connect to their chosen wireless 

network. The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act restores that exemption to promote consumer choice. 

Some carriers, including the four largest national carriers, have 

established principles under which they will help consumers unlock 

their phones, and the Committee expects that most unlocking will 

continue to be done by wireless carriers at the request of their customers.3 There are, however, circumstances in which additional 

avenues for unlocking may be preferable over attempting to unlock 

through the carrier. For example, some carriers require customers 

to bring their devices to the carrier’s physical store to have them 

unlocked.4 For those customers who do not live near the carrier’s 

retail location—perhaps because they live in a rural area, because 

they have limited mobility, or because the device was a gift from 

a friend or family member who lives in another part of the country—this requirement may prevent them from being able to get 

their devices unlocked. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

5 17 U.S.C. 1201(a). 

6See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access 

Control Technologies, 71 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006); Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 75 Fed. Reg. 

43,825 (July 27, 2010). 7See Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access 

Control Technologies, 77 Fed. Reg. 65260 (Oct. 26, 2012); id. at 65266 (‘‘[I]n light of carriers’ 

current unlocking policies and the ready availability of new unlocked phones in the marketplace, 

the record did not support an exemption for newly purchased phones.’’). 8Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal, THE WHITE HOUSE: WE THE PEOPLE, https:// 

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7. 9 R. David Edelman, It’s Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking, THE WHITE HOUSE: WE THE

PEOPLE (March 4, 2013), https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/its-time-legalize-cell-phoneunlocking. 

While it is not particularly difficult for a tech-savvy phone owner 

to unlock her device independently, it is possible that those who 

unlock their own devices to connect to their chosen network may 

violate Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA, which prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works.5 Because of the availability of civil or criminal sanctions under the DMCA, consumers with a legitimate interest in 

unlocking their wireless devices may be afraid to do so. 

From 2006 until 2012, because of an exemption granted by the 

Librarian of Congress pursuant to Section 1201(a)(1) of the DMCA, 

consumers had a guarantee that they were not breaking any laws 

when they unlocked their own cell phones simply in order to connect to their chosen network. The DMCA gives the Librarian of 

Congress the authority to conduct a triennial review process 

through which it may grant exemptions to anti-circumvention 

measures in Section 1201(a)(1). Beginning in 2006, the Librarian 

granted an exemption that allowed users to unlock their own cell 

phones in order to connect to their chosen network, provided that 

the carrier authorized the connection. The Librarian’s exemption 

was narrowly focused on cell phones, which were then the dominant mobile digital devices on the market. The exemption was also 

granted by the Librarian in 2010.6

In its 2012 rulemaking, the Librarian chose not to recognize an 

‘‘unlocking’’ exemption for new cell phones purchased after January 

26, 2013, finding that an adequate record had not been established 

pursuant to the Librarian’s de novo review requirement.7 The Librarian’s decision prompted a strong public reaction: a ‘‘We the 

People’’ petition on the White House website opposing the Librarian’s decision garnered over 110,000 signatures.8 On March 4, 

2013, in response to the ‘‘We the People’’ petition, the White House 

said that it would ‘‘support a range of approaches’’ to permitting 

mobile phone unlocking.9

On March 11, 2013, Senators Leahy, Grassley, Franken, Lee, 

Hatch, and Klobuchar introduced the bipartisan Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, S. 517, to restore the 

exemption for cell phone unlocking that had been in effect in previous years. Senators Thune and Whitehouse were also cosponsors. 

Chairman Goodlatte subsequently introduced identical legislation 

in the House of Representatives, and the House passed a modified 

version of the legislation in February 2014 (H.R. 1123). 

B. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Competition Act, S. 517, 

ensures that individual consumers are not prevented from 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

10 Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,825, 43,831–32 (July 27, 2010). 

unlocking their phone for the legitimate purpose of connecting to 

a wireless network of their choice. While many network carriers already sell unlocked phones, or will unlock phones for consumers 

under the terms of their contracts, the Committee recognizes that 

many consumers want the ability to unlock their cell phones themselves—or receive assistance doing so—for purposes of connecting 

to a network of their choice. The exemption created by the Librarian of Congress from 2006–2012 permitted users to unlock their 

cell phones for this purpose without fear of penalties under the 

DMCA. The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Competition Act restores that exemption until the Librarian of Congress’ next triennial rulemaking under the DMCA, promoting flexibility for consumers and enhancing competition in the wireless market. A further provision instructs the Librarian of Congress to consider, during its next rulemaking, whether to allow unlocking for wireless devices other than cell phones, such as tablets. 

The legislation provides two ways that cell phones may be unlocked, in addition to authorized unlocking by a device owner’s 

wireless carrier. First, it restores the Library of Congress’ 2010 exemption so that consumers may unlock their cell phones themselves in order to change carriers consistent with the terms of their 

contracts, provided that access to the chosen network is authorized. 

Second, the legislation ensures that cell phone owners who lack the 

technological understanding to unlock their phones can direct others to do the unlocking for them, solely to enable the owner or a 

family member to connect to a new wireless network. 

Neither of the methods for unlocking recognized by the legislation excuses owners from compliance with applicable service agreements they may have with the wireless carriers that service their 

phones. Such agreements may, for example, require fulfillment of 

an applicable postpaid service contract, device financing plan, or 

payment of an applicable early termination fee. Moreover, nothing 

in the bill permits third parties to unlock devices independently of 

the device owner’s direction, or for a purpose other than allowing 

the owner or a family member to connect to a new wireless network. As the Librarian of Congress explained with respect to the 

scope of permissible commercial activity under the 2010 determination that is reinstated by the bill, ‘‘the designation of this class will 

not benefit those who engage in the type of commercial activity 

that is at the heart of the objections of opponents of the proposed 

class: the ‘bulk resellers’ who purchase new mobile phone handsets 

at subsidized prices and, without actually using them on the networks of the carriers who market those handsets, resell them for 

profit. The type of commercial activity that would be permitted 

would be the resale of used handsets after the owners of the 

handsets have used them and then given or sold them to somebody 

else, who then resells them just as a used bookstore sells used 

books.’’ 10

The legislation also creates no new obligations for cell phone 

manufacturers or wireless carriers, such as how a carrier may 

choose to process unlocking requests or provide unlocking codes to 

third parties. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

Section 2(b) of S. 517 instructs the Librarian of Congress to consider, as part of its next triennial rulemaking under the DMCA, 

whether to allow unlocking for wireless devices other than cell 

phones, such as tablets, many of which may also be locked by carriers. This instruction acknowledges the growing importance of tablets and the potential for consumer harm if used tablets cannot be 

taken to a network of the consumer’s choice, while respecting the 

independence and judgment of the Librarian of Congress and the 

rulemaking process established under existing law for exemptions 

to the anti-circumvention prohibitions of the DMCA. 

While there are larger ongoing debates about the scope and application of Section 1201 of the DMCA, as well as other aspects of 

phone unlocking, those issues are not addressed by the legislation, 

which makes no changes to Section 1201 of the DMCA. The bill respects the independence of the Library of Congress under existing 

law to conduct the triennial rulemakings set forth in Section 

1201(a)(1) and does not alter the authority of the Librarian in future rulemakings. Instead, the legislation takes a narrow, targeted 

approach to protect consumers and promote competition in the 

wireless market by allowing consumers, and those acting at their 

direction, to transfer their phones to alternative providers as described in the bill. 

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 11, 2013, Senators Leahy and Grassley introduced the 

Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. Senators Franken, Hatch, Lee, and Klobuchar were original cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The bill was placed on the Committee’s agenda on June 26, 2014. 

The Committee considered S. 517 on July 10, 2014. Senators Leahy 

and Grassley offered a substitute amendment which added a provision allowing consumers to seek help unlocking their devices from 

a third party. Senators Coons and Blumenthal were added as cosponsors of the bill during Committee consideration of the substitute amendment. 

The substitute amendment was accepted by a voice vote without 

objection. 

The Committee then voted to report the Unlocking Consumer 

Choice and Wireless Competition Act, with an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute, favorably to the Senate by voice vote. 

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL

Section 1—Short title 

This section provides that the legislation may be cited as the 

‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.’’ 

Section 2—Repeal of Existing Rule and Additional Rulemaking by 

Librarian of Congress 

Subsection (a): This subsection repeals Paragraph (3) of 37 C.F.R. 

§ 201.40, as amended and revised by the Librarian of Congress on 

October 28, 2012 and replaces that text with the equivalent paraVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 19, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR212.XXX SR212

tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

11 Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,825 (July 27, 2010). 

graph that was in effect on July 27, 2010.11 In so doing, the subsection repeals the Library of Congress’ 2012 cell phone unlocking 

exemption, and reinstates the exemption that was granted pursuant to the triennial rulemaking conducted by the Librarian of Congress in 2010. The exemption created by the bill will remain in effect until the Library of Congress conducts its next triennial rulemaking and reaches a new decision on whether or not the record 

supports such an exemption. This subsection does not alter any 

other section of the Librarian of Congress’ 2010 or 2012 

rulemakings, nor does it alter the authority of the Librarian of 

Congress in future rulemakings. 

Subsection (b): This subsection directs the Librarian of Congress 

to consider, as part of its next regularly scheduled, triennial rulemaking, whether to extend an unlocking exemption to ‘‘other 

categor[ies] of wireless devices.’’ The subsection instructs the Register of Copyrights to consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce before presenting a recommendation on this matter to the Librarian 

of Congress, as is required under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C). The Librarian’s determination shall be conducted as a part of and subject 

to the applicable rules governing the Librarian’s triennial rulemaking under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). 

Subsection (c): Some consumers may find it challenging to unlock 

their devices. Accordingly, Subsection (c) allows owners of mobile 

devices to seek help unlocking their devices from a third party, and 

provides that they will likewise be able to do so under any future 

exemption applied to other wireless devices under Subsection (b), 

or future unlocking exemptions granted by the Librarian of Congress as described in Subsection (c)(2). In authorizing consumers to 

seek unlocking assistance, the Committee notes the limited circumstances under which phone or mobile device unlocking will 

occur. Unlocking a cell phone or other wireless device enables the 

device owner to connect his or her device to a wireless telephone 

network of his or her choice, and does not enable the device owner, 

or a third party on an owner’s behalf, to engage in other activities 

that infringe copyrighted works. Unlike many other situations 

where an exemption from the circumvention prohibition may be 

sought or granted, unlocking a cell phone to connect to a wireless 

network typically does not facilitate copyright infringement. 

The ‘‘direction of the owner’’ extension is limited in scope. A person authorized by an exemption to unlock their wireless telephone 

handset or other wireless device may authorize a third party to 

unlock the device for them where: (1) the circumvention is done 

solely to connect to a wireless telecommunications network; (2) the 

person directing the act of circumvention is the owner of the device; 

(3) the person connecting to the new wireless network is either the 

owner of the device or a family member of the owner; and (4) access to the new wireless network is authorized by the operator of 

the network. This section does not authorize circumvention in order 

to enable other unauthorized or harmful actions, such as removing 

or impairing security features that limit access to personal data or 

by exposing copyrighted content in ways that enable copyright inVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 19, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR212.XXX SR212

tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

fringement. Nor does the ability to seek help from a third party to 

unlock a device alter the contractual relationship between a consumer and that consumer’s wireless carrier. Directing a third party 

to unlock his or her device does not excuse a consumer from complying with his or her contractual obligations in any underlying 

service agreement. 

Subsection (d): This subsection sets forth two rules of construction to clarify and ensure that the legislation does not alter the 

scope of any party’s rights under existing law, and that the legislation does not alter the authority of the Librarian of Congress under 

Section 1201(a)(1) to engage in the rulemaking process created by 

the DMCA. Nor does this bill affect the scope and applicability of 

other aspects of Section 1201, including the prohibitions of Sections 

1201(a)(2) and 1201(b), which remain critical components of the 

DMCA. 

Subsection (e): This subsection defines terms that appear in the 

legislation. The terms ‘‘commercial mobile data service’’ and ‘‘commercial mobile radio service’’ are intended to cover what are typically known as data plans and voice plans. The terms ‘‘wireless 

telephone handset’’ and ‘‘wireless device’’ mean a handset or other 

device that operates on a wireless telecommunications network.’’ 

Smartphones and wireless-enabled tablets are two examples of the 

types of the devices that are covered by these respective definitions. 

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S.517, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, July 17, 2014. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 517, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 517—Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 517 would have no significant effect on discretionary spending over the 2015–2019 period. 

Enacting S. 517 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 517 would repeal a rule published in October 2012 by the Librarian of Congress (LOC) that limited the ability of certain owners 

of wireless telephone handsets to ‘‘unlock’’ their phones, that is, to 

circumvent software protections that prevent the owner from conVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:39 Jul 19, 2014 Jkt 039010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR212.XXX SR212

tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

necting to a different wireless network. The bill would reinstate an 

earlier rule that provided broader authority to circumvent such 

protections. S. 517 also would direct the LOC to consider whether 

to extend that broader authority to other categories of wireless devices in addition to smartphones. Based on information from the 

LOC, CBO estimates that implementing the provisions of the bill 

would not have a significant effect on the agency’s workload. 

S. 517 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect the 

budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

S. 517 would impose a private-sector mandate by eliminating an 

existing right of action for wireless carriers (and others), who are 

currently able to pursue legal action against those who, without 

permission, circumvent the access controls on certain wireless telephone handsets. The cost of the mandate would be the forgone net 

value of settlements and damages in such cases. A search of the 

literature suggests that few, if any, of those types of lawsuits have 

been brought against individual consumers. Because such claims 

would probably be uncommon in the future and the damage awards 

allowed in such cases would be relatively small, CBO estimates 

that the cost of this mandate would be small and fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandate 

($152 million in 2014, adjusted annually for inflation). If the Librarian of Congress decides to broaden the exemption allowed 

under the bill to cover other types of mobile devices, such an action 

would eliminate additional rights of action. The cost of that expansion would depend on what devices the Librarian would include 

under the exemption and the forgone net value of settlements and 

damages. CBO has no basis to estimate the cost of such mandates 

as it would depend on the regulatory actions taken by the Librarian. On November 5, 2013, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for 

H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 31, 2013. The provisions of both pieces of legislation 

are similar, as are the CBO cost estimates. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susan Willie (for 

federal costs) and Marin Burnett (for the private-sector impact). 

The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with subsection (b) of paragraph 11 of rule XXVI 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, it is hereby stated that the 

passage of S. 517 will require the Librarian of Congress to make 

a determination concerning an exemption for wireless devices other 

than cell phones during its next triennial rulemaking conducted 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1201(a). The Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will otherwise result from the enactment of 

S. 517. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act 

will ensure that consumers will be able to take their cell phones 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

with them to the network of their choice after satisfying their contracts without violating the copyright laws. 

VII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Pursuant to paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 

the Senate, the Committee finds no changes in existing law made 

by S. 517, as ordered reported. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS