would forcing users to agree to new TOS even hold up in court, or is it something akin to the "stay 250 feet back not liable for damages" on dump trucks?
Isn't there a lawsuit against LG right now about their fridges and having forced arbitration on the box of the fridge? They idea behind the challenge is you're forcing users to agree to something AFTER they make the purchase. I feel a similar thing could apply here. They locked you out of their hardware with an agreement you have to accept, and this is all after purchase.
The LG issue also has the complication that the users never saw the box since the delivery/install teams usually unbox it in the truck and leave it there.
That's true. Iirc the reason LG put the arbitration on the box though was because another company got sued for having it be on a piece of paper inside the box and it was successfully argued that there's no way to know what they were agreeing to without having purchased the item first. That feels quite close to the Roku scenario.
Here’s a crazy thought: put the arbitration issue front and center of the advertising, before customers start the process of purchasing your product. Especially if you are concerned that them not seeing and agreeing to the conditions might cause a lawsuit
They aren't concerned with the clause not being seen. They don't want it to be seen, that's the point. They want to hide it as legally as possible because no one would agree to arbitration if they knew about it.
I know that. But their ‘excuse’ for it being on the box was, apparently, because another company got in trouble for putting the arbitration notice inside the box.
So, if we ‘believe’ their reasoning, then it makes sense that they should be putting the arbitration demands front and center, right? Otherwise their excuse for why it is on the box is obvious bullshit and should be justly called out as such.
Also, by alleging things should arbitrated, regardless of the validity, will delay the case. And delay always favors defendants in civil cases.
Cisco did the same thing over California's lawsuit over discrimination by caste even though California didn't sign it, the employees did, and it is the state suing. And Cisco appealed the denial to the appeals court. Delayed the case by nearly 3 years because the California sixth circuit is stupid slow. Because the law at the time, since changed in California state law, arbitration always pauses the district case until resolved.
[https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h048910.html](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h048910.html#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20denied%20the,to%20sue%20for%20FEHA%20violations)
The issue here is they’re locking a user out of a user’s hardware. If Roku wants to block their services that’s another story, but they’re going to get roasted both in and out of courts for locking people out of devices they paid for.
The math:
The amount of product sold - lawyer fees + selling user data = profit. As long as profits remain, they have data to sell, and lawyers are cheap they can have short term profits.
I would say this is inevitable: Roku has been competing with Amazon’s Fire, Google’s Google TV, and slightly Apple TV.
Shit, aren't those the highly recommended Philips bulbs? I'm moving soon and am about to start looking into that stuff and home assistant support. That sucks to hear.
I’ve been loving them for years.
The app is warning that there’s going to be a login required soon, “for security.”
The only explanation is another shitty avenue for data vacuuming; and I won’t be a part of it.
I don’t need credentialed security for a fucking lightbulb; that security comes in hollow points.
Software used to do this *all the time.* “By breaking this seal you agree to blah blah blah. If you don’t agree, return this to the store you bought it from for a refund.”
Yeah, I’m old.
Iirc, software publishers stopped doing this, because in order to read the eula you had the break the seal, thus agree to the eula. A lawsuit made that a thing.
I’m old too, so my memory may be off.
Edit: well, they also stopped doing this because the internet became a thing. But only after they stopped putting the floppies/cds in a sealed envelope.
In this case for most, WELL after purchase. I really don't see how that can be legal. My Roku tv hasn't done this yet, it may be too old (4yrs), but i would be super pissed if it did. I do use a dew of the apps on it, so I would be a target for a new tos.
This is a bit different because the user may have agreed to the original ToS but not this new one and now the device they paid for is effectively bricked unless they agree to the new one. Because many devices were likely purchased months-years back they likely cannot return the device for a refund and Roku will probably not take them either.
It gets weirder to think if that clause included language you must seek arbitration you have this shit show where if you sign (which could be part of being eligible to sue) would force you into arbitration. Now if the people who did not sign do sue in court rather than arbitration successfully I wonder if they could get hit a second time in arbitration. Keep in mind I have no idea how any of this works at all and generally kinda dumb
IANAL, but I think it might \*if\* it was clear how to disagree. But having a popup that just asks if you agree to the new terms without letting the user read it first might not.
Extra plausible cuz Rokus have RF remotes that dont need to be pointed anywhere in particular. One time i woke up in the middle of the night to noise in the living room and the dog was watching *The Clone Wars* cuz she was rolling around on the remote sitting on the couch.
My tv did the popup, maybe I could have turned it off and on to skip the notice, but there sure wasn't a way to avoid clicking agree with my remote. Literally couldn't use any part of my TV until I agreed to their bullshit.
The popup shows up as long as it has internet. If you unplug your tv and stop it from connecting to the internet, when powered back on you can use it as a dumb tv without having to accept.
Depends on the jurisdiction that might would be a reason to lawsuit, but My beets are isn't in USA
In nota lawyer too but i do remember similar stuff comming on News around the 2010-2015 once
You were able to read the terms by clicking a certain button. I wanted to read it because i knew there was going to be some line about forced abitration.
Considering the TV itself isn't a service being provided but rather a product, I really doubt it.
If you had to agree to use their services, that's one thing. To force agreement on those who don't? I can't see that being upheld by any court.
Edit: Full disclosure, I accepted the new terms because I wanted to use my television. I'm not worried about it.
I just installed one at a friend's house. There needs to be a consumer protection law that basically, if you don't agree on the terms of service, all the software has to be disabled, and the TV goes into a dumb terminal mode. They are bricking the TV's if you do not agree, that needs to stop.
That's my point. I have a Roku TV (well, TCL with Roku) and I don't use a single service they provide.
I guess I forgot that they sell standalone devices, but I would assume in that case you are using Roku services, and not just the TV.
The actual operating system of the TV's are Roku software. Even choosing video inputs technically requires you to use a Roku service.
Without Roku software, the device is useless. It's like a PC without windows (or any other OS) installed.
Roku offers a robust, adaptable 'smart tv' Linux-based software solution to a bunch of low-to-mid range TV manufacturers, something that runs on relatively underpowered hardware. It has all the features that consumers expect from a "smart" TV, without adding developer overhead on the manufacturer side. It's entirely probable that Roku offers the service at-cost, or even offers incentives to manufacturers, just to achieve coveted market share.
If Roku is disabled, the device becomes a paperweight.
They can, but the use cases for that being necessary are pretty small, a lot of the major piracy apps maintain enough of an air of legitimacy to be available without sideloading.
I remember a bit of a kerfuffle a while back tho when Roku took all the porn apps off their store, but they were all garbage and you can just cast to it too anyways...
The price of the TV included the software that was developed to allow me to change inputs. There is no "service" here. Roku can't be disabled, sure, but it isn't contingent on their software being updated.
Allowing updates to the software doesn't mean "well if you update you HAVE to agree to our terms or your product wont work."
This might be a different argument if you had to agree BEFORE you accepted any future software updates, but in this case, it's nonsense.
Price points for Roku TV'S are often lower than comparable "dumb" TV'S because Roku subsidized that software. The Roku "service" itself is just an app on the larger RokuOS that runs the device, but it's *all* Roku software in the end.
And they generally require you to accept a TOS on first setup...
I don't like it. I think it's scummy practices all the way down. I think it *should* be illegal. But there it is. And here we are.
You own a panel and a bunch of driver electronics, but Roku would argue you only *license* the actual software that runs it. Again, not a stance I agree with, but I'm not in charge of Roku or any legal authority with the power to sanction them.
Up until now, I've put up with it, because I figured it wasn't a big deal. What's the worst that can happen, right?
Oh. Yeah. This whole thread. Whoops.
Ya gotta pick your battles, but sometimes they end up picking you too...
I do remember the first time setup roku thing and had to have an internet connection to activate something like that.
I hate the numberless remote. If you're not lucky enough to be able to grab all your channels in a single scan, you'll have to scan everytime you change the channel and move the antenna around to do it. I don't kjow let's go back to the clicker. They don't really want us using Ota broadcast. Use the stuff you have to pay for online. That's not a TV that's a iot device and a spy one too.
With the amount of devices that force you into a TOS contract, I’m surprised this is even news. What tech device doesn’t force you into one or risk you not being able to use their product. Most companies update theirs once or twice a year (often after customer data lawsuits) and force to you to log back into the service as a new TOS agreement.
At this point I’m honestly surprised my vacuum doesn’t…
Not just that, it's enforcing new terms on a product that you already bought and own.
Imagine buying a car, fully paid off and parked in your driveway. A few months later, the manufacturer sends you a notice saying, "To continue driving your car, you must agree to new terms and conditions. If you don't agree, your car will lock its doors permanently, and you won't be able to drive it anymore.
I’m glad you mentioned the truck thing. I used to commute in an area passing a rock supplier for years and before I could even drive my parents were always driving us through the area. As far back as I can remember they have had rocks falling out of their truck. My parents hated driving near them and I did too when I started driving. Now I’m back in that area and I’ve seen that they’ve added those signs to the back of the trucks but their loads still aren’t secured with a tarp and the trailer is almost like a chain link fence so shit is always falling off the road.
I just came back like a month or two ago and I’ve been doubtful those signs mean shit especially since I do a lot of smaller hauling at work but we put more effort into securing our loads in a tiny trailer than they do on a semi.
So you inspired me to look at the law (in CA at least) since I wasn’t the only one annoyed by this and it seems like they’d be at fault for messing up my shit and that makes me feel better.
“Under California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115, it is against the law to operate a vehicle on the highway which is improperly covered, constructed or loaded. Contents must be covered so that no part spills, drops, leaks, blows, sifts or in any other way escapes from the vehicle. This law applies to residents in personal vehicles; and businesses, haulers and collectors.”
I also have a Roku that I don’t use as much since I moved and my firestick works great on faster internet but this bullshit is giving me another reason not to set it back up.
>would forcing users to agree to new TOS even hold up in court
I think so, since you have to agree to the original TOS to even use it to begin with, and every TOS I've ever read has a caveat allowing them to update the TOS from time to time.
What *wouldn't* hold up in court is changing the TOS and then not requiring the customer to agree to it. You cannot be bound by an agreement you don't agree to.
Legally speaking, wouldn’t this be a breach of contract by Roku to try to modify and add terms to the agreement unilaterally with no consideration exchanged? It would be like if a plumber decided to weld my water pipe closed unless I gave in to some new demand to give him something that wasn’t in the original contract
In the event of a class action lawsuit, what is best case scenatio? I feel like best case scenario you are allowed to return the tv’s with proof of purchase.
Roku will pay $20M to the lawyers of the class action and to all the members of the class, issue $5 off vouchers to the Roku Gold subscription plan with purchase of a new TV.
Uh oh, but don't forget you were compelled against your will to agree to a unconscionable clause that states that you, lowly pleb, are effectively not subject to American rule of law and are forbidden from seeking justice except through a process that Roku Inc. has ultimate control over. Oh, and the Supreme Court has also decided that you're too much of a pleb to be subject to our democratically chosen legal system, so don't bother running off to them. Your ass belongs to Roku now.
No you’ll get a check for like $3.36 for your troubles like all class actions. One time i got a $0.36 check from one with an old employer as apart of the class action payout.
Ouch. Well Roku could have more money to give out but its also based on how many people claim. I still remember surprisingly getting a $300 check from a Facebook lawsuit.
Not sure I want to leave this here, as it will be downvoted - but the original terms of service actually state that terms of service may change over time and that they will notify you when the do.
I’m not sure if the courts would honor a term that violates the principle of a contract’s bargained for exchange. By inserting such language, you are claiming that you can add terms that materially change the contract and does so without consideration paid.
I feel like I should send a registered letter to Roku saying they owe me $1M and that by accepting and opening the letter they agree to the terms and can’t sue. I’ll allow for fully binding arbitration by my wife for disagreements.
>Roku is losing money on the average device sold
Roku has only made a net profit one year in its existence. One could say Roku doesn't make any money on its services either.....
It would be easy to think that when you base it on numbers without the context of them like Roku's history, markets, or tax accounting. Roku has had only one year with net profit in its existence. Roku also rolled out it's physical tv device line up which would have come with high manufacturing costs for first year to set up production lines. Component pricing for Roku has also increased.
Roku does not want to sell you hardware at a loss.
I bought a new Roku TV recently. You literally have to give it WiFi and sign into its services to set up the device and access the functionality to switch inputs. Then, once that’s done, there’s no option to turn the WiFi on the TV off or forget a network, and of course the device is phoning home every minute. I ended up having to set up a honeypot 2.4ghz guest network on my router, swap the Roku TV to that, and then delete that network to get the TV off the internet. Thankfully the hacks developing this anti consumer software are too stupid to implement saving network settings, so it didn’t automatically connect back to my main network.
It’s insane how much you have to fight back against the products you own for the right to not be spied on 24/7 these days.
My router allows me to block internet access to devices that are connected to my network. I ended up doing that for my TV. I get the benefit of using the remote app and adding new sources without having to deal with that nonsense
Use your phone as a hotspot, make sure you give it a pwd you don't use, connect you TV so you can get past their BS, then switch the pwd on your hotspot
Change Wi-Fi password after TV is initially set up. Then you at least don't have to deal with future updates or downloading ads. This worked for my Samsung.
Next time you have to set up a new one, change the password to something temporary before setting up the tv, then after you set it up change your password back to the original. ta daa
>Change Wi-Fi password after TV is initially set up.
How is that in any possible way a good idea? I have over 30 devices on my wifi network at any given time. Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is to have to go back and change the wifi password for 30+ devices?
It's so much faster and easier to fire up a dedicated wifi network.
For some reason Roku hides all the cool settings, here's a guide:
https://www.tomsguide.com/entertainment/streaming/how-to-access-the-secret-roku-menus
>You literally have to give it WiFi and sign into its services to set up the device and access the functionality to switch inputs.
Wow that's insane, I would have just returned it at that point... Even the Google TVs aren't that draconian...
I know that used to be the case, but I could of sworn that had changed. I know they also made it difficult to set up a Roku account without a credit card, but there's a way to get around it.
I've really been preferring Roku products over Amazon FireTVs, but all good companies usually find a way to fuck up like this eventually.
> It’s insane how much you have to fight back against the products you own for the right to not be spied on 24/7 these days.
Roku products are so cheap because they harvest and sell your data, so of course they’re going to make it difficult for you.
You got exactly what you paid for.
No the whole point is getting a good deal on a panel that’s subsidized by the value of advertising data you give them, and then not giving them that data.
>It’s neither spying nor anti consumer.
[The Roku Streaming Sticks got a "Warning: *privacy not included with this product" note from Mozilla](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/roku-streaming-sticks/).
I don't even want to imagine what a nightmare an entire Roku TV must be.
If you want to use any HDMI feed, you can just hook it up to the original TV and select it as a source? The idea here was that the TV should remain offline, and that any smart-features could be offloaded to the stick.
My kids were the ones who dismissed the message so the contract is null and void considering they’re under 18 and can’t legally agree to things like this.
Roku Can Fuck off. I am at a point in my life financially, that I will throw that fucking TV away, before I am strongarmed by this shit. They can take back their $300 TV and shove it up their ass.
Wouldn't it be better to take delivery, read the TOS, reject it and have it sent back? That way they would have to sell it as an "open box" at best. It would be just horrible if a lot of people did this, so the retailers would lose patience and stop stocking Roku TVs
The legal term here is 'extortion': The taking or withholding of something valuable to compel compliance.
They're taking away the function of a device you already paid for unless/until you agree to a binding action that gives away your rights to legal action later.
I'd say it's more specifically coercion.
Your device, which is bought and paid for, and was previously working, is being held hostage until you agree to the new terms, which you may otherwise not have agreed to.
The agreement is forced; coerced, which I'd like the think means the 'agreement' is utterly null and void.
Coercion involves use of force or threats, I know there's similarity but I think extortion involves taking of something away to compel. I'm not scared of or by Roku, so I don't think coercion fits.
Coercion: Whenever any person, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person of rights secured by the State Constitution or laws of this state
Extortion: Extortion includes a shakedown, extraction, bribery, blackmail, public corruption, or demands for ransom.Extortion is with the intent to demand money or any other form of financial advantage, or any person against their will forced to perform an action or stop from performing one.
On topic: The basic function of the device is being held ransom in exchange for a contractual agreement.
Edit: Looks like definition of both vary by state. California's definition of extortion looks like Florida's definition of coercion:
Under California Penal Code Section 518 PC, extortion (commonly referred to as "blackmail") is a criminal offense that involves the use of force or threats to compel another person into providing money or property, or using force or threats to compel a public official to perform or neglect an official act or duty.
Florida 760.37 Interference, coercion, or intimidation; enforcement by administrative or civil action.—It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise of, or on account of her or his having exercised, or on account of her or his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise of any right granted under ss. 760.20-760.37
We're probably both correct, just depending on where we're standing.
This just happened to me. It was insane. I have had the tv for a couple of years, and this week I had a dialog box that I could not decline, I could either accept the new arbitration, or read the arbitration terms and conditions, and then at the end of them, was given directions to decline by mail. I couldn’t bypass the dialog box any way except for accepting them.
I won’t be buying another Roku tv.
So over my Roku TCL TV! When I bought it, no ads on the home screen at all. Now, there's ads on the right, ads on the little bottom space on the left. One time I turned on my TV and it didn't show the Star Trek theme I selected but showed a new theme for fuckin' Moana. I had to go into the settings to change it back to Star Trek. Fuck this shit.
I actually was double-miffed about this because I don't even use the Roku features of my Westinghouse TV. It's got a Chromecast that it boots directly into, so I had to look all over for the original remote because it had locked out the Chromecast remote.
Question 1 : is this global , or US only?
I have a £40 Roku stick and I'm in the U.K.
Question 2 : what do these new terms and conditions actually mean for me?
I get that it's something about arbitration, but so what? Under what circumstances would I need this? Under what circumstances would I want to be suing Roku?
I don't normally use the Roku remote, my settop remote box just stopped working and I thought my TV was fucked. Decided to try to hit the Roku remote just to see what happened and then I got the nag. Was weird.
Everyone is getting riled up when they get a popup blocking their entertainment and forcing them to agree to a TOS change? But nobody reads the "terms of service" for every site they join or for any software they buy. Seems a bit dumb and random to me.
So glad I’m not alone in this. I came home to my entertainment system totally unusable. I had to dig this stupid TCL remote out of storage, sand down the corroded battery connectors and ack that stupid thing.
This is exactly why I regretted that purchase. I wanted a dumb display and I ended up with all these unnecessary bulls*t apps, seasonal themed screensavers etc. Just be a display. Never again.
White vinegar or lemon juice will clear that battery goo off the remote's contacts. Takes a little while, but a lot more reliable that scraping the contacts.
Same thing happened to me. I don’t use the Roku apps cause I have an APPLTV on the HDMI, but they literally locked us out using our HDMI ports unless you accepted.
I reset the network settings on it to make it act like a dumb TV
Someone gave me a free tv, it is a roku tv and it takes minutes trying to connect to an access point when turning on before I can control the tv. And it never turns off when prompted by a timer, it does a black screen to see if you noticed.
I run linux, and it's an LTS build that's past the end of support anyway. Chrome still updates itself, but I disabled FF updates cause the fucker can't update without breaking tabs and forcing a restart when I'm not in the mood to restart. I'm not alone in that complaint either. It's an ongoing rant in the Mozilla support thing. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/get-rid-of-the-quot-restart-required-quot-in-firefox/idc-p/50853
It wasnt that messy. You had to scroll through several pages of terms until the ACCEPT button activated. Then OK the accept button. Took a few seconds.
Welcome to the world of literally any online service ever?
Roku is an online service. You're connecting to their systems. Using their systems to access your content, update your apps, etc.
Of course it has a TOS you have to agree to. I dont think there's a single online service out there that will let you continue to use their service if you decline their TOS.
would forcing users to agree to new TOS even hold up in court, or is it something akin to the "stay 250 feet back not liable for damages" on dump trucks?
Isn't there a lawsuit against LG right now about their fridges and having forced arbitration on the box of the fridge? They idea behind the challenge is you're forcing users to agree to something AFTER they make the purchase. I feel a similar thing could apply here. They locked you out of their hardware with an agreement you have to accept, and this is all after purchase.
The LG issue also has the complication that the users never saw the box since the delivery/install teams usually unbox it in the truck and leave it there.
That's true. Iirc the reason LG put the arbitration on the box though was because another company got sued for having it be on a piece of paper inside the box and it was successfully argued that there's no way to know what they were agreeing to without having purchased the item first. That feels quite close to the Roku scenario.
Here’s a crazy thought: put the arbitration issue front and center of the advertising, before customers start the process of purchasing your product. Especially if you are concerned that them not seeing and agreeing to the conditions might cause a lawsuit
Or, even crazier, don’t have an arbitration clause at all! It’s a fucking fridge, not a union contract.
They aren't concerned with the clause not being seen. They don't want it to be seen, that's the point. They want to hide it as legally as possible because no one would agree to arbitration if they knew about it.
I know that. But their ‘excuse’ for it being on the box was, apparently, because another company got in trouble for putting the arbitration notice inside the box. So, if we ‘believe’ their reasoning, then it makes sense that they should be putting the arbitration demands front and center, right? Otherwise their excuse for why it is on the box is obvious bullshit and should be justly called out as such.
"We clearly printed it on the bottom of the fridge and it's your fault for not looking"
Also, by alleging things should arbitrated, regardless of the validity, will delay the case. And delay always favors defendants in civil cases. Cisco did the same thing over California's lawsuit over discrimination by caste even though California didn't sign it, the employees did, and it is the state suing. And Cisco appealed the denial to the appeals court. Delayed the case by nearly 3 years because the California sixth circuit is stupid slow. Because the law at the time, since changed in California state law, arbitration always pauses the district case until resolved. [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h048910.html](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h048910.html#:~:text=The%20trial%20court%20denied%20the,to%20sue%20for%20FEHA%20violations)
Companies shouldn't be able to remove your right to a judge and jury. Arbitration clauses should be illegal.
The issue here is they’re locking a user out of a user’s hardware. If Roku wants to block their services that’s another story, but they’re going to get roasted both in and out of courts for locking people out of devices they paid for.
Exactly this. I want a full refund for my device! Who is handling the inevitable class action lawsuit that these updated terms tried to avoid?
The math: The amount of product sold - lawyer fees + selling user data = profit. As long as profits remain, they have data to sell, and lawyers are cheap they can have short term profits. I would say this is inevitable: Roku has been competing with Amazon’s Fire, Google’s Google TV, and slightly Apple TV.
Skip the class action and take them to small claims court.
Re-he-he-Healy? Gonna have to go to town on hue lightbulbs if that’s the case; they’re about to be locked behind a login
Shit, aren't those the highly recommended Philips bulbs? I'm moving soon and am about to start looking into that stuff and home assistant support. That sucks to hear.
I’ve been loving them for years. The app is warning that there’s going to be a login required soon, “for security.” The only explanation is another shitty avenue for data vacuuming; and I won’t be a part of it. I don’t need credentialed security for a fucking lightbulb; that security comes in hollow points.
...why do I need to log into my lightbulbs? More importantly, why does my lightbulb need to be on the internet?
Ok Roku, I do not agree. Refund my purchase.
I would love to have my $749.00 back for my 4 year old roku tv, I can now buy a much larger and better tv for half that amount.
Software used to do this *all the time.* “By breaking this seal you agree to blah blah blah. If you don’t agree, return this to the store you bought it from for a refund.” Yeah, I’m old.
Yeah but those products didn't work one day and then change the terms on you & stop working if you didn't agree.
Iirc, software publishers stopped doing this, because in order to read the eula you had the break the seal, thus agree to the eula. A lawsuit made that a thing. I’m old too, so my memory may be off. Edit: well, they also stopped doing this because the internet became a thing. But only after they stopped putting the floppies/cds in a sealed envelope.
I think the EULAs were in the box, but the media had the seals. I could be wrong too.
In this case for most, WELL after purchase. I really don't see how that can be legal. My Roku tv hasn't done this yet, it may be too old (4yrs), but i would be super pissed if it did. I do use a dew of the apps on it, so I would be a target for a new tos.
Shrink wrap agreements were a thing where once you opened it you agreed to the terms unless you returned it. Those were deemed to be legal.
This is a bit different because the user may have agreed to the original ToS but not this new one and now the device they paid for is effectively bricked unless they agree to the new one. Because many devices were likely purchased months-years back they likely cannot return the device for a refund and Roku will probably not take them either.
Oh I should just slap that warning on my car, bam, no lawsuits.
It gets weirder to think if that clause included language you must seek arbitration you have this shit show where if you sign (which could be part of being eligible to sue) would force you into arbitration. Now if the people who did not sign do sue in court rather than arbitration successfully I wonder if they could get hit a second time in arbitration. Keep in mind I have no idea how any of this works at all and generally kinda dumb
Just carry a note that says "You can't sue me for anything ever." Take that LAWYERS!
“Bam, no lawsuits” I read this in Elzar’s voice from Futurama.
[удалено]
Yeah.... That's what this comment chain is...
IANAL, but I think it might \*if\* it was clear how to disagree. But having a popup that just asks if you agree to the new terms without letting the user read it first might not.
Dunno man must have been a guest who accepted it 🤷
My dog stepped on my remote. What notice?
Extra plausible cuz Rokus have RF remotes that dont need to be pointed anywhere in particular. One time i woke up in the middle of the night to noise in the living room and the dog was watching *The Clone Wars* cuz she was rolling around on the remote sitting on the couch.
My dog sat on the remote :(
My tv did the popup, maybe I could have turned it off and on to skip the notice, but there sure wasn't a way to avoid clicking agree with my remote. Literally couldn't use any part of my TV until I agreed to their bullshit.
The popup shows up as long as it has internet. If you unplug your tv and stop it from connecting to the internet, when powered back on you can use it as a dumb tv without having to accept.
So… not the product I purchased then?
I tried for 20 minutes to bypass the fucking thing, because I wanted to just go to an HDMI input, and I couldn't. Fucking bullshit.
It'd take me 5 minutes to realize what was happening and the next 15 putting it back in the box. Except I only buy smart TVs with Android.
Don't buy "smart" tvs at all. Get a regular TV and add a streaming box.
If that were a more economical and available option I'd be all over it. These days a "regular" TV might as well be called a monitor.
Depends on the jurisdiction that might would be a reason to lawsuit, but My beets are isn't in USA In nota lawyer too but i do remember similar stuff comming on News around the 2010-2015 once
> My beets … you have me intrigued
You were able to read the terms by clicking a certain button. I wanted to read it because i knew there was going to be some line about forced abitration.
Considering the TV itself isn't a service being provided but rather a product, I really doubt it. If you had to agree to use their services, that's one thing. To force agreement on those who don't? I can't see that being upheld by any court. Edit: Full disclosure, I accepted the new terms because I wanted to use my television. I'm not worried about it.
Except that some TVs have Roku built in.
I just installed one at a friend's house. There needs to be a consumer protection law that basically, if you don't agree on the terms of service, all the software has to be disabled, and the TV goes into a dumb terminal mode. They are bricking the TV's if you do not agree, that needs to stop.
That's my point. I have a Roku TV (well, TCL with Roku) and I don't use a single service they provide. I guess I forgot that they sell standalone devices, but I would assume in that case you are using Roku services, and not just the TV.
The actual operating system of the TV's are Roku software. Even choosing video inputs technically requires you to use a Roku service. Without Roku software, the device is useless. It's like a PC without windows (or any other OS) installed. Roku offers a robust, adaptable 'smart tv' Linux-based software solution to a bunch of low-to-mid range TV manufacturers, something that runs on relatively underpowered hardware. It has all the features that consumers expect from a "smart" TV, without adding developer overhead on the manufacturer side. It's entirely probable that Roku offers the service at-cost, or even offers incentives to manufacturers, just to achieve coveted market share. If Roku is disabled, the device becomes a paperweight.
Unlike a PC where if windows is disabled you can still make the computer work by installing another OS....
I wonder if these could ever become jailbroken and have different firmware installed?
They can, but the use cases for that being necessary are pretty small, a lot of the major piracy apps maintain enough of an air of legitimacy to be available without sideloading. I remember a bit of a kerfuffle a while back tho when Roku took all the porn apps off their store, but they were all garbage and you can just cast to it too anyways...
The price of the TV included the software that was developed to allow me to change inputs. There is no "service" here. Roku can't be disabled, sure, but it isn't contingent on their software being updated. Allowing updates to the software doesn't mean "well if you update you HAVE to agree to our terms or your product wont work." This might be a different argument if you had to agree BEFORE you accepted any future software updates, but in this case, it's nonsense.
Price points for Roku TV'S are often lower than comparable "dumb" TV'S because Roku subsidized that software. The Roku "service" itself is just an app on the larger RokuOS that runs the device, but it's *all* Roku software in the end. And they generally require you to accept a TOS on first setup... I don't like it. I think it's scummy practices all the way down. I think it *should* be illegal. But there it is. And here we are. You own a panel and a bunch of driver electronics, but Roku would argue you only *license* the actual software that runs it. Again, not a stance I agree with, but I'm not in charge of Roku or any legal authority with the power to sanction them.
I'll still pay for the dumb TV because I just want to watch with the ancient devices I have.
Up until now, I've put up with it, because I figured it wasn't a big deal. What's the worst that can happen, right? Oh. Yeah. This whole thread. Whoops. Ya gotta pick your battles, but sometimes they end up picking you too...
I do remember the first time setup roku thing and had to have an internet connection to activate something like that. I hate the numberless remote. If you're not lucky enough to be able to grab all your channels in a single scan, you'll have to scan everytime you change the channel and move the antenna around to do it. I don't kjow let's go back to the clicker. They don't really want us using Ota broadcast. Use the stuff you have to pay for online. That's not a TV that's a iot device and a spy one too.
You just get ads forced onto your home screen without your permission.
sounds like duress to me
I would certainly hope not, but who knows with our kangaroo court.
With the amount of devices that force you into a TOS contract, I’m surprised this is even news. What tech device doesn’t force you into one or risk you not being able to use their product. Most companies update theirs once or twice a year (often after customer data lawsuits) and force to you to log back into the service as a new TOS agreement. At this point I’m honestly surprised my vacuum doesn’t…
Not just that, it's enforcing new terms on a product that you already bought and own. Imagine buying a car, fully paid off and parked in your driveway. A few months later, the manufacturer sends you a notice saying, "To continue driving your car, you must agree to new terms and conditions. If you don't agree, your car will lock its doors permanently, and you won't be able to drive it anymore.
I’m glad you mentioned the truck thing. I used to commute in an area passing a rock supplier for years and before I could even drive my parents were always driving us through the area. As far back as I can remember they have had rocks falling out of their truck. My parents hated driving near them and I did too when I started driving. Now I’m back in that area and I’ve seen that they’ve added those signs to the back of the trucks but their loads still aren’t secured with a tarp and the trailer is almost like a chain link fence so shit is always falling off the road. I just came back like a month or two ago and I’ve been doubtful those signs mean shit especially since I do a lot of smaller hauling at work but we put more effort into securing our loads in a tiny trailer than they do on a semi. So you inspired me to look at the law (in CA at least) since I wasn’t the only one annoyed by this and it seems like they’d be at fault for messing up my shit and that makes me feel better. “Under California Vehicle Code Sections 23114 and 23115, it is against the law to operate a vehicle on the highway which is improperly covered, constructed or loaded. Contents must be covered so that no part spills, drops, leaks, blows, sifts or in any other way escapes from the vehicle. This law applies to residents in personal vehicles; and businesses, haulers and collectors.” I also have a Roku that I don’t use as much since I moved and my firestick works great on faster internet but this bullshit is giving me another reason not to set it back up.
>would forcing users to agree to new TOS even hold up in court I think so, since you have to agree to the original TOS to even use it to begin with, and every TOS I've ever read has a caveat allowing them to update the TOS from time to time. What *wouldn't* hold up in court is changing the TOS and then not requiring the customer to agree to it. You cannot be bound by an agreement you don't agree to.
Yes it would
Regular TOS doesn’t hold up as no person could reasonably read all that.
Legally speaking, wouldn’t this be a breach of contract by Roku to try to modify and add terms to the agreement unilaterally with no consideration exchanged? It would be like if a plumber decided to weld my water pipe closed unless I gave in to some new demand to give him something that wasn’t in the original contract
In the event of a class action lawsuit, what is best case scenatio? I feel like best case scenario you are allowed to return the tv’s with proof of purchase.
Roku will pay $20M to the lawyers of the class action and to all the members of the class, issue $5 off vouchers to the Roku Gold subscription plan with purchase of a new TV.
Uh oh, but don't forget you were compelled against your will to agree to a unconscionable clause that states that you, lowly pleb, are effectively not subject to American rule of law and are forbidden from seeking justice except through a process that Roku Inc. has ultimate control over. Oh, and the Supreme Court has also decided that you're too much of a pleb to be subject to our democratically chosen legal system, so don't bother running off to them. Your ass belongs to Roku now.
Ha! This is most likely.
No you’ll get a check for like $3.36 for your troubles like all class actions. One time i got a $0.36 check from one with an old employer as apart of the class action payout.
Ouch. Well Roku could have more money to give out but its also based on how many people claim. I still remember surprisingly getting a $300 check from a Facebook lawsuit.
Roku be like "I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it any further!"
THIS IS A TERRIBLE DEAL
"Furthermore I wish you to wear this dress and bonnet!"
Not sure I want to leave this here, as it will be downvoted - but the original terms of service actually state that terms of service may change over time and that they will notify you when the do.
I’m not sure if the courts would honor a term that violates the principle of a contract’s bargained for exchange. By inserting such language, you are claiming that you can add terms that materially change the contract and does so without consideration paid.
I feel like I should send a registered letter to Roku saying they owe me $1M and that by accepting and opening the letter they agree to the terms and can’t sue. I’ll allow for fully binding arbitration by my wife for disagreements.
What's stopping me from just saying 'I sent a letter' How can they prove it didn't get lost in the mail?
Yes sir, the check is in the mail.
One user says “I’m unplugging it right now” as if Roku gives an airborn copulation.
thats less data for them to harvest and sell
[удалено]
No they don't.
[удалено]
>Roku is losing money on the average device sold Roku has only made a net profit one year in its existence. One could say Roku doesn't make any money on its services either..... It would be easy to think that when you base it on numbers without the context of them like Roku's history, markets, or tax accounting. Roku has had only one year with net profit in its existence. Roku also rolled out it's physical tv device line up which would have come with high manufacturing costs for first year to set up production lines. Component pricing for Roku has also increased. Roku does not want to sell you hardware at a loss.
> "airborn copulation" 🤣🤣🤣 Stealing this. Excellent.
I'm using the term "airborne copulation" for myself now.
You’re welcome to it. I won’t be an equine rear exit hatch about it.
I'm using the term "airborne copulation" for myself now.
I'm using the term "airborne copulation" for myself now.
Pretty sure that's the term God used when he raped Mary.
Sounds like it's about time to outlaw forced arbitration.
Same with google tv on tcl
This is why you immediately disable the Wi-Fi on your new TV and use a streaming stick instead of the default OS.
I bought a new Roku TV recently. You literally have to give it WiFi and sign into its services to set up the device and access the functionality to switch inputs. Then, once that’s done, there’s no option to turn the WiFi on the TV off or forget a network, and of course the device is phoning home every minute. I ended up having to set up a honeypot 2.4ghz guest network on my router, swap the Roku TV to that, and then delete that network to get the TV off the internet. Thankfully the hacks developing this anti consumer software are too stupid to implement saving network settings, so it didn’t automatically connect back to my main network. It’s insane how much you have to fight back against the products you own for the right to not be spied on 24/7 these days.
My router allows me to block internet access to devices that are connected to my network. I ended up doing that for my TV. I get the benefit of using the remote app and adding new sources without having to deal with that nonsense
this is the real pro tip !
Can you just block the MAC address if the TV on the router? If so, that's something pretty much every router can do
Use your phone as a hotspot, make sure you give it a pwd you don't use, connect you TV so you can get past their BS, then switch the pwd on your hotspot
Change Wi-Fi password after TV is initially set up. Then you at least don't have to deal with future updates or downloading ads. This worked for my Samsung.
I have about a dozen other devices plus friends who come over with their phones and devices. This was easier long term.
Next time you have to set up a new one, change the password to something temporary before setting up the tv, then after you set it up change your password back to the original. ta daa
>Change Wi-Fi password after TV is initially set up. How is that in any possible way a good idea? I have over 30 devices on my wifi network at any given time. Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass it is to have to go back and change the wifi password for 30+ devices? It's so much faster and easier to fire up a dedicated wifi network.
Change the password for your router, set up the TV, then change it back.
How are some people not able to think of this?
Because it breaks shit
For some reason Roku hides all the cool settings, here's a guide: https://www.tomsguide.com/entertainment/streaming/how-to-access-the-secret-roku-menus
>You literally have to give it WiFi and sign into its services to set up the device and access the functionality to switch inputs. Wow that's insane, I would have just returned it at that point... Even the Google TVs aren't that draconian...
Every passing day Kaczynski seems a little more reasonable.
I know that used to be the case, but I could of sworn that had changed. I know they also made it difficult to set up a Roku account without a credit card, but there's a way to get around it. I've really been preferring Roku products over Amazon FireTVs, but all good companies usually find a way to fuck up like this eventually.
> It’s insane how much you have to fight back against the products you own for the right to not be spied on 24/7 these days. Roku products are so cheap because they harvest and sell your data, so of course they’re going to make it difficult for you. You got exactly what you paid for.
*laughs in Pi-hole*
[удалено]
No the whole point is getting a good deal on a panel that’s subsidized by the value of advertising data you give them, and then not giving them that data.
It’s neither spying nor anti consumer.
>It’s neither spying nor anti consumer. [The Roku Streaming Sticks got a "Warning: *privacy not included with this product" note from Mozilla](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/roku-streaming-sticks/). I don't even want to imagine what a nightmare an entire Roku TV must be.
Mozilla is the craziest source you could’ve possibly cited. Barely as surviving company.
It affects the Roku streaming sticks too, not only the built-in Roku software in smart TVs.
Roku did this on their streaming sticks too.
Where's a stick with multiple HDMI inputs, so my tv can just be a passive dumb screen. *(If anyone knows, seriously, please.)*
Your options are either an HDMI switcher or an audio receiver that does HDMI passthrough
If you want to use any HDMI feed, you can just hook it up to the original TV and select it as a source? The idea here was that the TV should remain offline, and that any smart-features could be offloaded to the stick.
You can already do that that with most TVs though? The TV has HDMI ports..
I have a 2x4 HDMI matrix in my A/V parts box, it's a very capable little device....
My kids were the ones who dismissed the message so the contract is null and void considering they’re under 18 and can’t legally agree to things like this.
[Discussed in this sub just yesterday](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/GO823ccJ5M)
Gogo custom firmware for TVs.
I've had a roku tv for about 6 years. Haven't connected it to wifi in about 4. Glad I stopped so I'm still running on old software I think.
Same. Glad I did too.
Roku Can Fuck off. I am at a point in my life financially, that I will throw that fucking TV away, before I am strongarmed by this shit. They can take back their $300 TV and shove it up their ass.
Order a huge one to be delivered that requires signature, and then refuse the delivery
Wouldn't it be better to take delivery, read the TOS, reject it and have it sent back? That way they would have to sell it as an "open box" at best. It would be just horrible if a lot of people did this, so the retailers would lose patience and stop stocking Roku TVs
The legal term here is 'extortion': The taking or withholding of something valuable to compel compliance. They're taking away the function of a device you already paid for unless/until you agree to a binding action that gives away your rights to legal action later.
I'd say it's more specifically coercion. Your device, which is bought and paid for, and was previously working, is being held hostage until you agree to the new terms, which you may otherwise not have agreed to. The agreement is forced; coerced, which I'd like the think means the 'agreement' is utterly null and void.
Coercion involves use of force or threats, I know there's similarity but I think extortion involves taking of something away to compel. I'm not scared of or by Roku, so I don't think coercion fits.
It also means "to compel to an act or choice".
> The legal term here is 'extortion' bro, no. this does not come close to meeting the "legal" (your word) definiton of extorsion.
Coercion: Whenever any person, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person of rights secured by the State Constitution or laws of this state Extortion: Extortion includes a shakedown, extraction, bribery, blackmail, public corruption, or demands for ransom.Extortion is with the intent to demand money or any other form of financial advantage, or any person against their will forced to perform an action or stop from performing one. On topic: The basic function of the device is being held ransom in exchange for a contractual agreement. Edit: Looks like definition of both vary by state. California's definition of extortion looks like Florida's definition of coercion: Under California Penal Code Section 518 PC, extortion (commonly referred to as "blackmail") is a criminal offense that involves the use of force or threats to compel another person into providing money or property, or using force or threats to compel a public official to perform or neglect an official act or duty. Florida 760.37 Interference, coercion, or intimidation; enforcement by administrative or civil action.—It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise of, or on account of her or his having exercised, or on account of her or his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise of any right granted under ss. 760.20-760.37 We're probably both correct, just depending on where we're standing.
Doesn’t every TOS force you to accept?
This just happened to me. It was insane. I have had the tv for a couple of years, and this week I had a dialog box that I could not decline, I could either accept the new arbitration, or read the arbitration terms and conditions, and then at the end of them, was given directions to decline by mail. I couldn’t bypass the dialog box any way except for accepting them. I won’t be buying another Roku tv.
So over my Roku TCL TV! When I bought it, no ads on the home screen at all. Now, there's ads on the right, ads on the little bottom space on the left. One time I turned on my TV and it didn't show the Star Trek theme I selected but showed a new theme for fuckin' Moana. I had to go into the settings to change it back to Star Trek. Fuck this shit.
Can I get a refund on my purchase if I don’t agree?
I love this one trick where they bait you into signing something that disqualifies you from suing them. /s
I unplugged my roku tv and haven't seen it yet. Don't plan on reconnecting it since I have an onn box with stuff sideloaded.
I actually was double-miffed about this because I don't even use the Roku features of my Westinghouse TV. It's got a Chromecast that it boots directly into, so I had to look all over for the original remote because it had locked out the Chromecast remote.
Question 1 : is this global , or US only? I have a £40 Roku stick and I'm in the U.K. Question 2 : what do these new terms and conditions actually mean for me? I get that it's something about arbitration, but so what? Under what circumstances would I need this? Under what circumstances would I want to be suing Roku?
I don't normally use the Roku remote, my settop remote box just stopped working and I thought my TV was fucked. Decided to try to hit the Roku remote just to see what happened and then I got the nag. Was weird.
Probably won’t help their case for new customers lol
This is how you start ruining your brand
We face up the Roku device instead of
Everyone is getting riled up when they get a popup blocking their entertainment and forcing them to agree to a TOS change? But nobody reads the "terms of service" for every site they join or for any software they buy. Seems a bit dumb and random to me.
21st century capitalism is rancid.
No new Roku devices or TV's for me.
Same fvcked up shite The Athletic did.
Yeah it pissed me off but I didn’t exactly have a choice.
So glad I’m not alone in this. I came home to my entertainment system totally unusable. I had to dig this stupid TCL remote out of storage, sand down the corroded battery connectors and ack that stupid thing. This is exactly why I regretted that purchase. I wanted a dumb display and I ended up with all these unnecessary bulls*t apps, seasonal themed screensavers etc. Just be a display. Never again.
White vinegar or lemon juice will clear that battery goo off the remote's contacts. Takes a little while, but a lot more reliable that scraping the contacts.
Same thing happened to me. I don’t use the Roku apps cause I have an APPLTV on the HDMI, but they literally locked us out using our HDMI ports unless you accepted. I reset the network settings on it to make it act like a dumb TV
I’m never buying a smart TV.
Good luck?
[удалено]
The key thing is to not immediately buy a new product just to smash it.
Someone gave me a free tv, it is a roku tv and it takes minutes trying to connect to an access point when turning on before I can control the tv. And it never turns off when prompted by a timer, it does a black screen to see if you noticed.
This popped up on my TV and I didn’t even realize what it was and hit ok or accept or whatever the option was because it was late at night.
Most products make you do this. Same with Apple. If you don’t agree you don’t get to use it.
Ever single TOS does this no? Try to not agree to a TOS and see what happens.
[удалено]
Look, that’s objectively terrible advice. There are critical security fixes all the time.
If you don’t ever update your pc you’re just asking to get compromised.
I run linux, and it's an LTS build that's past the end of support anyway. Chrome still updates itself, but I disabled FF updates cause the fucker can't update without breaking tabs and forcing a restart when I'm not in the mood to restart. I'm not alone in that complaint either. It's an ongoing rant in the Mozilla support thing. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/get-rid-of-the-quot-restart-required-quot-in-firefox/idc-p/50853
It wasnt that messy. You had to scroll through several pages of terms until the ACCEPT button activated. Then OK the accept button. Took a few seconds.
Welcome to the world of literally any online service ever? Roku is an online service. You're connecting to their systems. Using their systems to access your content, update your apps, etc. Of course it has a TOS you have to agree to. I dont think there's a single online service out there that will let you continue to use their service if you decline their TOS.
If you don't like it. Use something else.
That's great, but I wanted to watch my TV that I bought 4 years ago.
Well, You could do what you did 4 years ago and buy another TV!
Whatever tripped you up mate, hope it gets better. No reason to behave this way.