I see both points being used in this overall thread.

On one hand, the change DOES have an adverse monetary effect on the consumer, and is quite obviously a breach of the contract and should give the consumer a way out of the contract, without fees, if they so desire.

On the other hands, the change is being adjusted, which in the past has usually gotten carriers around the material change aspect of the contract. The nature of the adjustment, however, is different than in the past - previously, if the regulatory charge was raised, something was lowered to accommodate it, creating a zero monetary change. In this case, the effect is similar, but through a different means.

The problem stems from the ambiguous nature of this section of the contract. If the contract stated specific means by which the company had to adjust the monetary increase to negate the material change, then there would be a clear answer here. Instead, we have statements that are open for interpretation. And as any legal buff and lawyer knows, those holes are usually filled with legal precedence. And if the past couple decades of lawsuits against wireless carriers are any indication, legal precedence will probably allow this bill credit method to skirt through unharmed.

The fact of the matter is this: Verizon won't be waiving any ETFs without a legal reason to do so, and that would only come with legal challenges and time.