The devices those users paid for? That should be illegal.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
700 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3350 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm pretty sure this won't fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this "feature" was not advertised, and they're not being denied access to a product they purchased. It's clearly coercive.
However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas.
deleted by creator
Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don't know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn't ask). It's fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can't credit them since I don't recall their name.
Props for not claiming it anyways
load more comments
(1 replies)
Also how would they prove the owner even saw the notice they supposedly agreed to? This is probably them testing the waters for something worse.
We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates.
You didn’t consent and your child can’t.
In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
When are we gonna finally nail companies for using underhanded and coercive tactics with consumers?
Oh, never? Okay then.
When we make lobbying illegal in ~~this country~~ the United States
Europe is doing it. Look at Apple vs Spotify, as well as Apple forced to open their app stores to 3rd parties. Those are consumer oriented laws. In the USA, lobbying prevent those from happening.
And until the EU starts playing hardball, they'll continue to engage in malicious compliance (literally how they've responded to the DMA so far). Time will tell if the EU actually has the balls for this.
The DMA took effect since yesterday I think and the fine for it was like up to 20% of global revenue if I remember correctly. The EU has enforced GDPR very well so far so I don't doubt them enforcing this.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not a lawyer, but 99.9999% sure this violates the CFAA. Correct me if I'm wrong? Would t even matter if they included it in EULA or something, 'no reasonable person...'
This has class action lawsuit written all over it.
There will certainly be many lawsuits about it, no doubt. They e shot themselves in the foot for no reason here. What a dumb move.
There should be a law that any change of T&C after the purchase of a product gives the customer the option to refuse the terms and get a full refund of that product, no matter how old it is.
I have a smart light switch I can't use anymore because they updated the app to force you to make an account to use it and I refused since it worked fine for the last 3 years without them needing to sell my data.
If the firmware on the switch hasn't been updated to not function with old versions of the app why not just snag an old APK and use the old app version?
At least as long as you own the thing, worth a shot
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, my next tv won’t have a Roku in it. I was just about to buy one, and if anyone here has any advice on a dumb TV with no built-in smart features, I would really appreciate some suggestions. They’re surprisingly difficult to find nowadays. I’m looking for some thing 43 inches or smaller, 4K or 1080, and nothing special. Preferably very cheap.(I’m poor)
Smart TVs are usually sold at a loss because they expect to make the money back through ads, so if you never connect one to the internet in the first place, you get a cheap decent TV and you cost these cockroaches money
load more comments
(6 replies)
My setup is a Samsung that doesn’t have WiFi setup. It supports HDMI CEC, as does my game console and streaming box, so I basically never touch the TV remote. It’s effectively a dumb monitor.
I mostly stream via my Xbox and AppleTV since they’re performant systems.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Most LGs can be set up without internet at all.
My fucking Samsung Refrigerator refused to cool until I paired it to a mobile app. It wasn't even one of those fancy tablet screen ones. It beeped at me for hours until I had the time to figure out wtf was wrong with it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Shit happened to me yesterday. Pissed me off. Bought this TV years ago and suddenly I can't use it until I accept their new arbitration shit. I'm building a stream box and disabling the internet on this thing. I'm sick of ads anyway.
Do it, its worth the effort
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have no idea how US contract law works. Even if you agree to something that says "we can alter the deal at any time", when a change happens to the deal, don't both sides have to benefit, rather than "agree to this change so that you can keep the same thing you had before"?
I honestly think a lot of these terms of service agreements are legally unenforceable, but they don't get contested in court very often.
Like if they say "you consented to the arbitration agreement" I could just argue I never physically signed anything and it was actually my 5 year old who agreed so he could watch TV.
But don't you see, the consumer surely benefits. After agreeing they get to continue using their tv under our new and wonderful terms of service. /s
load more comments
(1 replies)
When are the users taking them to court. These guys aren't Nintendo so I expect them to have to fuck themselves.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My kid consented. I think. Can she make binding contracts that she doesn't tell me about because she's looking for Blues Clues, or am I responsible for every OK she checks when I'm not present?
I let my cat step on the remote. Fucker doesn't pull his weight, so if the lawyers come after him he's on his own.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
So legally speaking, what happens if it was my 8 year old son, who clicks buttons with no regard for human life, that agreed to this BS TOS? How is that legally binding?
Yeah, this is really dumb. There's no way they can prove the owner clicked on it and they can't hold anyone else to the terms.
It isn't, an 8 year old can't be held to a contract like this. IANAL.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My in-laws have all Roku tvs. I had to go over and "fix" the TV's for them cause they didn't understand what the hell this was. I straight up just gave them my modded Nvidia shields and bought myself some more. Fuck that shit. We need a better open source tv like interface. I've used plasma big screen but it's not ready for normal people with not Linux but fixing experience.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Enshittification continues. I used to evangelize roku bc I want a dumb TV. I guess that's no longer valid.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Between this and Amazon's recent nonsense with Firetv I think next time I'll just buy a generic Android box or something, maybe even a mini PC.
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Roku users around the country turned on their TVs this week to find an unpleasant surprise: The company required them to consent to new dispute resolution terms in order to access their device.
The terms, of course, include a forced arbitration agreement that prevents the user from suing or taking part in lawsuits against Roku.
This requires anyone with legal complaints to take them to Roku lawyers first, who will conduct a “Meet-and-Confer” call and then “make a fair, fact-based offer of resolution” that will no doubt be generous and thoughtful.
I try to opt out of these when I can, and after reading the terms (to which, of course, by “continuing to use” my TV, I had already agreed), I found that you could only do so by mailing a written notice to their lawyers — something I fully intended to do today.
Though in retrospect, I — and literally every single user of your company’s services — would have preferred a straightforward electronic opt-out instead of this dishonest ploy to increase friction and further coerce adoption of these terms.
Don’t delay; otherwise, when people sue them over how they held devices hostage in order to coerce them into consumer-hostile dispute resolution terms, you won’t be able to join in on the fun.
The original article contains 849 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Glad I never connected mine to the internet, I find the interface too laggy and clunky to use the built in streaming apps anyway. It shall remain offline until it dies which is hopefully a long way off.
view more: next ›