By Ahmad Hathout
The CRTC on Friday launched a show-cause proceeding requiring Bell to show why its practice of selling locked devices isn’t a violation of the Wireless Code.
In the meantime, the regulator is suspending section F.1 of the Wireless Code, which explicitly states that carriers must sell devices in an unlocked state. As a result, carriers will be allowed to sell locked devices provided they automatically unlock them within two business days after purchase.
“Service providers must also make reasonable efforts to inform customers about how long devices will be locked for, what receiving a locked device means for them, and their right to request that the device be unlocked,” the CRTC said.
The stay on F.1 will remain until the CRTC makes a decision on its consumer code harmonization proceeding, a hearing for which is scheduled for November 30.
“The Commission notes that Bell Canada has admitted to providing locked devices at points of sale and that these devices are locked for 60 days after sale. Bell Canada appears to have implemented this practice on an uninterrupted basis since 23 April 2025. While Bell Canada submitted that this practice is necessary and compliant with the Wireless Code, the Commission nevertheless notes that paragraphs F.1.i. and ii. of the Wireless Code require the selling of devices in an unlocked state and the provision of unlocking services upon request to customers who have a locked device.”
Interventions are due September 14.
Bell argues that section F.1 does not specify a “temporal requirement of ‘at or before the time of sale’” that would restrict a time-limited locking period. It is asking for at least interim relief to “maximize the deterrent effect on criminal networks by eliminating the ability of bad actors to exploit differences between carriers.”
“There had been a significant number of robberies (including attempted robberies) at Bell locations, each of which involved the use of force, threats or intimidation directed at Bell employees often including the dangerous use of firearms or other weapons prior to the introduction of our Safety Practice,” Bell said in a CRTC submission.
The practice of selling devices locked to the carrier’s network has been identified by the CRTC, which banned the practice in 2017, as a barrier for customers switching carriers. However, the carriers say the practice helps prevent theft.
“Bell’s safety practice has protected employees and customers from violent store robberies. In early 2025, Bell experienced a drastic increase in retail store robberies and device theft,” a Bell spokesperson told Cartt, noting there was a more than 500 per cent increase such incidents before the implementation of its safety practice, which includes the device lock which automatically unlocks after 60 days at no cost to the customer.
“Since introducing this targeted safety practice, in-store robberies have been nearly eliminated, helping to keep employees, customers, and the public safe,” which includes an 80-per-cent decrease in customer accounts being targeted by third-party fraud and a more than 35-per-cent decrease in warehouse and shipment thefts, the spokesperson added.
Bell was asked what it thought of the two-day locking period, but said it was still reviewing the notice.
“The first 60 days following activation represent the highest risk window for subscription fraud, while fewer than 1% of legitimate Bell customers seek to switch providers during that 60-day period,” Bell said in an intervention supporting Telus’s application to mandate a 60-day lock period. “A temporary and limited device lock during this window does not meaningfully impede switching but has the potential to meaningfully reduce fraud and safety risks for employees, customers, and the broader public.”
Despite being told to stop the practice, Telus, which did not respond to a request for comment, has gone so far as to tell the CRTC last month that it will do it for what it believes to be the requisite number of days it takes to protect against theft.
“Given the magnitude of the ongoing public safety crisis and the unrecoverable financial harm being sustained daily, TELUS advises the Commission that it intends to implement a temporary 60-day device lock on all new device activations on July 30, 2026,” Telus said in its application to the commission.
Telus is asking the CRTC to codify the ability for carriers to lock devices for 60 days on subsidized or financed devices to curb what it calls the fastest growing con in the telecom industry: subscription fraud.
That fraud, Telus conveys, creates victims out of the telecom and the individual with legitimate credit, who may see their identity, obtained via a security breach, used to sign up for such plans with $0 phones or who may be duped by receiving a dollar amount from a criminal to voluntarily sign up for a similar plan, hand the phone over to the criminal, and be left holding the debt on the phone — called credit muling.
“Rogers’ experience confirms that device theft, organized retail crime, subscription fraud, account takeover fraud, and other forms of device‑related criminal activity continue to pose significant risks to customers, frontline employees, and WSPs themselves,” the cable giant said in its intervention supporting Telus’s 60-day lock ask. “Rogers has experienced substantial losses associated with these activities despite considerable investments in fraud prevention and physical security measures,” which it says includes alarm and surveillance systems, stolen device trackers, high-security locks, controlled entryways, panic alarm pendants for staff, and time-delay product safes with signage.
In response to a request for comment, Rogers told us it will continue to participate in relevant proceedings.
Quebecor, which said it has had 1,000 devices stolen since March 2024, told Cartt that the two-day locking measure is “clearly not sufficient.”
But while it supports Telus’s application, Quebecor wants the CRTC to ensure that any locked device measure ensure that unlocking is free, simply and quick; there is clear disclosure at the point of sale; there are exceptional unlocking mechanisms, particularly for international travel; and there is no impediment to switching providers.
Quebecor added that it also wants the CRTC to recognize the “incomplete nature of network locking, which does not cover inventory theft prior to activation,” which is the primary source of its subsidiary Videotron’s losses. And it would also like the regulator to “undertake, notably through an expanded CISC working group, a structured engagement with device manufacturers to make their own anti-theft deactivation technology available to Canadian WSPs, and recommend that the Government of Canada examine a legislative or regulatory mechanism to that effect.”
Cogeco, which declined to comment, also supports Telus’s application.
“As a current bring your own device (BYOD) carrier and a prospective entrant into mobile device sales, Cogeco anticipates encountering similar operational hazards and fraudulent activities as those currently faced by TELUS,” Cogeco, which declined to comment, said in its own supporting submission to Telus’s application. “Identity-based subscription fraud—where bad actors use stolen identities to obtain subsidized or financed devices with zero upfront costs for immediate resale profit—poses a significant threat to the sustainability of new entrants.”
However, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications (FRPC) oppose the measure.
PIAC asks whether there are “less restrictive alternatives” that can be applied here. “PIAC’s position is that TELUS has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that device locking for a 60-day period on an interim basis is the only effective and proportionate response to this issue or that less restrictive alternatives would be inadequate,” the public interest group says in its intervention to Telus’s application.
“PIAC also notes that granting interim relief on this matter could prematurely reverse an important consumer safeguard without a thorough review by the Commission,” it adds. “Thus, all issues related to changes required to the device unlocking rules are better suited to be addressed in the Codes proceeding. We also argue that the requested interim relief would reintroduce a recognized barrier to switching, consumer choice and device portability before all relevant and competing considerations could be fully examined.”
FRPC argues that Telus’s application “is wildly disproportionate as a means of limiting street-level theft and is an entirely inefficient way to reduce SIM swap fraud, given that device-locking has nothing to do with fraudsters’ deception of WSPs.”
“The Commission has already ruled that a 60-day lock is not in the best interest of consumers and that not evidence supports its necessity or proportionality,” the FRPC adds. “TELUS’s application offers no new evidence to overcome this precedent.”
