SUBMISSION OF CASE POSITION IN REGARD TO THE MATTER BETWEEN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INSERT NAME HERE Insert Mailing Address Here Insert Email Here

Before Arbitrator INSERT NAME HERE Case Number: INSERT CASE #

AND

VERIZON WIRELESS One Verizon Place 3B1COS Alpharetta, G.A. 3004

STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The contract (hereafter, the agreement or the contract) between Verizon Wireless (hereafter, Verizon or the company) and INSERT NAME HERE (hereafter, the customer) was changed in a materially adverse manner on EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEE INCREASE HERE when Verizon raised an administrative charge from $X.XX to $X.XX per line. The agreement specifically allows for the customer to be released from all contractual obligations in the event of that the customer notifies Verizon in advance that the change is materially adverse. Verizon breached the contract when it denied the release of the customer from the contract after being duly notified of its adverse material changes on DATE YOU CALLED CUSTOMER SERVICE TO NOTIFY THEM YOU CONSIDERED CHANGE TO BE ADVERSE.

Page 1 of 9

REQUESTED REMEDY: Verizon shall be bound by the terms of the contract and release the customer from the contract. The customer shall be able to terminate service with Verizon without paying the early termination fee on account #INSERT ACCOUNT NUMBER HERE.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The contract between the parties began on CONTRACT START DATE and ends CONTRACT END DATE. The terms of the contract between the customer and Verizon were changed in a material adverse manner on FEE INCREASE DATE when the company decided to raise the administrative charge. The DATE OF PREVIOUS BILLING STATEMENT BEFORE FEE INCREASE billing statement for the customer contained the following verbatim statement from Verizon (Customer Exhibit A, page 7, emphasis added): Notice Of Administrative Charge Increase: Effective 1/1/2012, the monthly Verizon Wireless Administrative Charge for voice and email plans will increase from $0.83 to $0.99 per line for all eligible customers. The charge for Mobile Broadband customers will remain at $.06. For information regarding this charge, call 1-888-684-1888. Please consult your Customer Agreement for information about rate changes. Upon reviewing this fee increase, the customer found the increase to be a materially adverse change in the agreement. The customer is on a limited budget, and the fee increase as implemented is a change in the contract that has a real negative impact on the customer by increasing the monthly bill. This unilateral change of contract terms to increase fees was not part of the original contract (Customer Exhibit B) entered into by the parties. The agreement between Verizon and the customer provides the following remedy in the event of a materially adverse change in terms (Customer Exhibit B, page 3, emphasis added): Can Verizon Wireless Change This Agreement or My Service? We may change prices or any other term of your Service or this agreement at any time, Page 2 of 9

but we'll provide notice first, including written notice if you have Postpay Service. If you use your Service after the change takes effect, that means you're accepting the change. If you're a Postpay customer and a change to your Plan or this agreement has a material adverse effect on you, you can cancel the line of Service that has been affected within 60 days of receiving the notice with no Early Termination Fee. As provided by the agreement, Verizon in a timely manner notified the customer of the intent to change the terms via written notice in the DATE OF PREVIOUS BILLING STATEMENT BEFORE FEE INCREASE bill. The customer in response notified representatives of Verizon in a timely manner (CUSTOMER REP NAME, Verizon Customer Service, CUSTOMER REP ID) that the change was materially adverse on DATE YOU CALLED CUSTOMER SERVICE TO NOTIFY THEM YOU CONSIDERED CHANGE TO BE ADVERSE. CUSTOMER REP NAME promised to resolve the issue with a supervisor and contact the customer within a few days, but she did not do so. The customer filed a complaint against Verizon wireless with the Better Business Bureau after receiving no notice of release from the contract. In response Verizon notified the customer of their decision to not release the customer from the contract, and offered to credit the customers account for the amount of $3.84. At no time did the customer accept this alternative remedy of an account credit, but it was applied to the customers account without consent. The customer notified the Better Business Bureau that the case was not resolved and requested that the case be sent to arbitration since Verizon is in breach of contract by failing to adhere to the contractually supplied remedy for causing an adverse material impact on the customer. There is no language in the agreement indicating Verizon has the option to refuse to adhere to these terms.

Page 3 of 9

II. CUSTOMERS POSITION: A. There is no legitimate question of arbitrability, the case is properly before the arbitrator. B. The terms of the contract between the customer and Verizon were changed in a materially adverse manner when the company decided to raise the administrative charge. C. The agreement does not allow Verizon to choose alternative remedies. The only contractual remedy in this case is that the customer should be released from the contract. D. After the customer requested release from the contract in accordance with the terms, Verizon changed the terms of the agreement. In doing so, Verizon has tacitly acknowledged and agreed to points B and C above by changing its contract language to allow the company to mitigate adverse impacts via alternative remedies, but these terms were not in effect at the time of the events in this case. A. There is no legitimate question of arbitrability, the case is properly before the arbitrator. In the course of requesting that this case be sent for arbitration, Verizon has attempted to argue that the case is not subject to arbitration. In its letter to the Better Business Bureau, Verizon stated we did not change the Plan nor the contractual agreement therefore the arbitration request should be dismissed since this charge does not fall within the above mentioned category. This claim does not make any sense the case record before the arbitrator clearly demonstrates that Verizon raised the customers administrative fee from $0.83 to $0.99 per line, and in its bill notification even contained the statement Please consult your Customer Agreement for information about rate changes. Changing the fee is obviously a part of the Customer Agreement, which Verizon admits by telling the customer to consult their Agreement concerning the rate increase. Indeed, as Customer Exhibit B (page 4, emphasis added) shows, the Agreement explicitly states: What Charges Are Set by Verizon Wireless? You agree to pay all access, usage and other charges that you or the user of your wireless device incurred. For Postpay Service, our charges include Federal Universal Page 4 of 9

Service, Regulatory and Administrative Charges, and we may also include other charges related to our governmental costs. We set these charges; they arent taxes, they arent required by law, they are kept by us in whole or in part, and the amount and what they pay for may change. There can be no legitimate claim that raising the Administrative Charge does not constitute a change in the terms of the agreement. The fact that Verizon offered a service credit to cover some of this fee indicates the company knew it needed to compensate customer because the contract terms resulted in a materially adverse change. However, this ex post facto "adjustment offer" on the part of the company is not the remedy required by the contract (see Customer Exhibit B). The proposed adjustment does not change the fact that the fee increase still occurred, resulting in a materially adverse change in terms. Verizon also included in its Better Business Bureau letter is the statement that Furthermore, we show that the $3.84 credit issued is significantly more than the $0.48 charge that has been billed under this increase; we do not arbitrate for future charges, only current and past charges. Again, the customer finds that this statement has no connection to the actual contract in this case. As will be discussed later in greater detail, Verizons alternative remedy, which is not an option available in the contract, is to offer a service credit proportionate to the fee increase. However, since this remedy is outside of the contract the customer is not forced to accept this remedy and is instead seeking to enforce the contract that Verizon actually has with the customer. There is no question that the contract between the parties requires that the customer be released from the contract in the event of a materially adverse change. As it currently stands, Verizon is in breach of its contract because it has failed to follow the remedy supplied in the contract. B. The terms of the contract between the customer and Verizon were changed in a materially adverse manner when the company decided to raise the administrative charge. Page 5 of 9

The agreement between the customer and Verizon states in clear, every-day language that Verizon may change any terms of the agreement, but that the customer must be released from the agreement in the event that the terms are materially adverse and Verizon is notified in a timely manner. There is no dispute in this case on the facts that (1) Verizon changed the terms of the contract and (2) the customer notified Verizon that the changes were found to be materially adverse in a timely manner. At no point in the contract is a materially adverse change defined, and in the absence of Verizon providing a definition what constitutes such a change it should be determined by the customer. To suggest otherwise would mean that Verizon has defined a term of the contract but failed to disclose it to the customer, which means that Verizon could be acting in bad faith and the agreement as such would be void ab initio. As previously stated the fee increase represents a meaningful negative change because it resulted in a monthly increase in the customers bill when the customer is on an extremely limited income. C. The agreement does not allow Verizon to choose alternative remedies. The only contractual remedy in this case is that the customer should be released from the contract. Verizon offered to compensate for this issue by offering an account adjustment that the customer does not accept. This account adjustment is a remedy that is not permissible according to the terms of the contract. Although Verizon may choose at its discretion to offer alternative remedies that are outside the contract to minimize the impacts of a materially adverse change, the agreement does not require that the customer accept these alternative remedies. The contract language is clear and unambiguous about the responsibilities of Verizon in the case that a customer notifies them of a materially adverse change within 30 days of it going into effect Verizon must allow the customer to leave without paying the early

Page 6 of 9

termination fee. In making this point the customer is relying on the arbitral standard of plain language, and urges the arbitrator to use this standard in this case as it is clearly applicable. If the arbitrator accepts that Verizon can force the customer to accept a remedy which is outside the contract in response to an adverse material change, then Verizon is altering contract terms in a unilateral manner. Although the arbitrator is not bound by legal precedent, it is important to note that there is case law to support the idea that such a unilateral change in terms is legally unconscionable. In Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 379 F.3d 159 (5th Cir. 2004), the court held if a customer was compelled to accept a burdensome change in the terms on the pain ofpaying a termination fee, that might show that the attempt to change the terms was unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. Verizon cannot enter into a contract with the customer and then decide that it the materially adverse change provision does not apply because they offered credit to the customers bill an amount proportional to the fee increase. The customer may choose to accept such an offer, but there is nothing in the standing agreement that forces the customer to do so. The only contractual remedy provided is that Verizon must release the customer from the contract after being notified of a materially adverse change in terms. D. After the customer requested release from the contract in accordance with the terms, Verizon changed the terms of the agreement. In doing so, Verizon has tacitly acknowledged and agreed to points B and C above by changing its contract language to allow the company to mitigate adverse impacts via alternative remedies, but these terms were not in effect at the time of the events in this case. Verizon cannot (1) keep the customer in the contract and (2) unilaterally amend the contract to make the customer accept a new remedy that the company devised presumably to circumvent their contractual responsibility to honor the previous terms. This change in terms

Page 7 of 9

demonstrates Verizon undoubtedly knows that it has a contractual obligation in this case to release the customer from the early termination fee because it recently updated the agreement to include a new term. Under this new term, if Verizon attempts to remedy a materially adverse change, customers cannot be released from their contracts (Customer Exhibit C, page 2, emphasis added): Can Verizon Wireless Change This Agreement or My Service? We may change prices or any other term of your Service or this agreement at any time, but we'll provide notice first, including written notice if you have Postpay Service. If you use your Service after the change takes effect, that means you're accepting the change. If you're a Postpay customer and a change to your Plan or this agreement has a material adverse effect on you, you can cancel the line of Service that has been affected within 60 days of receiving the notice with no Early Termination Fee if we fail to negate the change after you notify us of your objection to it. The new portion of the contract if we fail to negate the change after you notify us of your objection to it was added after the events of this case. This revision is extremely important for the arbitrator to note because it suggests bad faith on the part of Verizon in this case why would the standard contract between the company and its customers need to be updated to include this clause unless otherwise Verizon has a contractual obligation to release customers from contracts upon notice of any materially adverse change? In noting this behavior by the company, it is also important to note that the contract in this case which should be used is Customer Exhibit B and not the most recent agreement with this new term, Customer Exhibit C. CONCLUSION: Verizon entered into a contract with a customer that enabled the customer to be released from the agreement in the event of a materially adverse change. Verizon, in raising a fee, caused a materially adverse change. The customer notified Verizon in a timely manner, but Verizon refused to uphold the contract by releasing the customer. Verizon has no contractual authority to compel the customer to accept alternative remedies, the only remedy is the one written in the Page 8 of 9

contract. Verizon is in breach of the contract given current circumstances. There is evidence to suggest that Verizon is acting in bad faith by later updating its terms to bar customers from being released from contracts when the company attempts to negate any materially adverse change. For all these reasons, the customer requests that he be released from the contract and be allowed to terminate service without paying an early termination fee. Respectfully submitted,

YOUR NAME

Page 9 of 9