776

Roku TV bricked until agreeing to new terms of service (programming.dev)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by DaleGribble88@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

203 comments fedilink hide all child comments

See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn't use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don't agree to their terms, then I don't get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don't use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I'd rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can't find those anymore.

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It's weird to me because I'd never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn't be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn't agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.

I wish Roku TVs weren't cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out...

EDIT: Shout out to @testfactor@lemmy.world for recommending the brand "Sceptre" when buying my next (dumb) TV.

EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010@lemmy.world for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you're good to rock and roll.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Sections 1(F) and 1(L) seem like the only ways out/around of this. (IANAL; the bolding emphasis was done by me.)

F. Small Claims. You or Roku may pursue any Claim, except IP Claims, in a small-claims court instead of through arbitration if (i) the Claim meets the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims court and (ii) the small claims court does not permit class or similar representative actions or relief.

L. 30-Day Right to Opt Out. You have the right to opt out of arbitration by sending written notice of your decision to opt out to the following address by mail: General Counsel, Roku Inc., 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112 within 30 days of you first becoming subject to these Dispute Resolution Terms. Such notice must include the name of each person opting out and contact information for each such person, the specific product models, software, or services used that are at issue, the email address that you used to set up your Roku account (if you have one), and, if applicable, a copy of your purchase receipt. For clarity, opt-out notices submitted via any method other than mail (including email) will not be effective. If you send timely written notice containing the required information in accordance with this Section 1(L), then neither party will be required to arbitrate the Claims between them.

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that's not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this...

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that’s not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this…

IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause ('if applicable')...

Such notice must include the name of each person opting out and contact information for each such person, the specific product models, software, or services used that are at issue, the email address that you used to set up your Roku account (if you have one), and, if applicable, a copy of your purchase receipt.

Who decides what is applicable or not, and if the applicable scenarios are not listed in the terms, then are any applicable?

How does someone who is not a lawyer determine this so they can make an informed decision before they can agree to it?

[-] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause ('if applicable')...

It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.

True, but enforceable or not is different from what I was asking about though.

For the sake of argument let's say that it is enforceable. How then does a regular person, a non-lawyer, understand what they're agreeing to, when verbiage is used like what I've quoted above.

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

IMO opting out is meaningless.

Despite the fact that attorneys are the primary beneficiaries of class action suits, the settlement dollar amounts are often high enough to give companies like Roku pause before they make consumer hostile changes. Not enough people will jump through Roku's absurd opt-out hoops to make a class action suit worthwhile for attorneys, and thus those lawsuits won't be filed in the first place, removing any risk to Roku no matter what BS they pull. They simply don't give a fuck and don't want that to end up costing them.

Of course the few people who opt-out can sue on their own, but the settlement dollars will be insignificant to a company the size of Roku.

Years ago being beneficial to the community was part of the mission statement of many corporations. That slowly disappeared and companies moved to customer service theater. Now even the pretense of being of benefit to communities and customers is being dropped and companies are regularly openly hostile outside their PR departments. And they wonder why people hate them.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Imagine the paperwork though (processing, tracking, etc.) that they would have to go through if everyone did send in a letter, option out.

I mean, we can stay cynical, stay beaten down, or we can push back. If enough people push back, you'll definitely see change.

The problem is there's always someone convincing people not to push back online, for some strange reason.

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Lol! So you're going to punish Roku about their consumer hostile stance with some extra paperwork? That's the ticket!

Very, very few people will even take 10 minutes to open an online AG complaint about a company that is directly harming them by openly breaking the law. You think a comment on Lemmy (or anywhere) is going to make a damn bit of difference to a legal corporate practice that started long before social media existed?

I know a guy who has deal on a really great bridge...

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You think a comment on Lemmy (or anywhere) is going to make a damn bit of difference

Funny you should accuse me of that. You might want to take a look at this post I just made on the same day I replied to you...

https://lemmy.world/comment/8140817

The only point I'm trying to make is don't be cynical and just sit on your ass, and do nothing about it. Even if the only things you can do are small things, they're still things that you're doing.

At the very least you can look at yourself in the mirror, and if you're lucky, you may help affect real change.

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Sending opt-out letters to Roku, no matter how many the receive won't make the slightest bit of difference and you know it. The points I made in my post are perfectly valid, both in respect to Roku and corporations in general. Affecting real change has nothing to do with Roku or a thousand opt-out letters.

Real, lasting change at this point can only be accomplished politically. Corporations will only change because they're forced to and that doesn't have a damn thing to do with my comment, or with yours.

So get off your high-horse, quit with the straw-man arguments and look at your own fucking self in the mirror.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So get off your high-horse, quit with the straw-man arguments and look at your own fucking self in the mirror.

NO U!

[-] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

LOL! Did you learn that in nursery school?

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're a 'having the last word' type of person, aren't ya?

this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024

776 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59993 readers

1818 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS