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

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

You can click the “agree” button to get back full functionality.

Not without acquiescing to a thing I do not want. Not without the fear and uncertainty of whether a civil court would actually agree with that. Whether I can afford to go up against company lawyers in court. Not without being a legal expert.

As said: Remedy being available doesn't mean that an attempt to coerce was not made, and the attempt itself is punishable. What about "the attempt is punishable" do you not understand?

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

It's not coercive at all under that definition. It's not an attempt to be coercive. Think about it more before replying.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

under that definition.

First off: What definition are you referring to because I don't see any mentioned that would imply what you said.

Not coercive would be giving the user the option to not agree to the new terms, not coercive would be not taking the telly hostage when the user wants to use it.

If Roku did not want to coerce its users to acquiesce, why did they choose such a drastic act? Is there any reasonable other motive? In defence you might argue technical necessity or such, very likely a losing battle but you might drag out the proceedings. but even then there's still enough initial suspicion to start the case.

And, as said: It's certainly not the job of an ordinary citizen to figure all that out. That's the job of police and prosecutors.

this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024

776 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59993 readers

1854 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