Roku’s Ultimatum: Surrender Jury Trial Rights or Lose Access to Your TVs
Did your Roku TV decide to strong arm you into giving up your rights or lose your FULLY FUNCTIONING WORKING TV? Because mine did.
It doesn't matter if you only use it as a dumb panel for an Apple TV, Fire stick, or just to play your gaming console. You either agree or get bent.
Time for a class action suite.
Noooooooo, you just signed that right away! /s
“My cat stepped on the controller, your honor. I never actually saw or agreed to those terms.”
I hope the suite (sounds like sweet) has snacks because I’m hungry. We’ll be waiting there while the law(suit) is pending.
Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.
Now it's the complete opposite.
Worst part is, now you can't find a dumb TV anymore. The closest thing out there are "commercial signage displays" which are just dumb TVs with limited inputs and usually without remotes, but 25-50% more expensive because "commercial" (and because they won't be able to continue making money by showing you ads and selling your data) and a lot of retailers won't let you order one without a business account, or force you to order in bulk.
And every Neanderthal I complain to is like "but smart TVs have so many more features," like, bro, I can make any TV the smartest fucking TV in the world by plugging it into the desktop PC I'm gonna keep right next to it anyway. All the "smart" bullshit just gets in the way. I've yet to encounter a smart TV UI that didn't require a dozen button presses to change inputs and spend two seconds or more re-drawing the UI with EVERY INPUT because they put the cheapest processors they can find in these pieces of shit.
Commercial displays cost more because backlight testing and ratings double or triple. You’re paying more for longer uptime since your display is likely to run 12+ hours a day straight and not for 1-2 hours a day with an occasional 8+ hour usage. You’re also paying actual cost, but a lot of it really has to do with testing and materials that are built to survive consistent and frequent usage, plus centralized management. Lots of people assume it’s the same shit, but it’s completely different and it shows when you buy a consumer off the shelf display and put it in production.
I have no experience with them, but FYI a bunch of people were recommending sceptre for dumb TVs in other threads.
What I don't get about smart TVs is why you can't use it with your phone. That's one of Kodi's best features. You can just type using your phone keyboard. Typing with a TV remote is a fucking NIGHTMARE.
They're also brighter and don't burn in as easily
You can (or at least could) put Bravia TVs into “pro mode” and turn off all the shit.
Any tv without internet access is a DumbTV™️, no?
So anybody who doesn't have A FUCKING DESKTOP PC near their TV is a Neanderthal?
I have a smart TV from 2019 and it runs perfectly fine, it's snappy and convenient. Switching inputs requires 2 button presses (3 if you don't want to wait 3 seconds to auto-switch to the selected one) or I can automate it with home assistant for a "movie watching" scene for instance, for 0 button presses.
Plus you seem to completely misunderstand what digital signage TV are.
I have always opposed smart TVs. Most of my reasoning is because the UI is almost always dogshit slow because the hardware and software is thrown in as an afterthought. But I'll add this to my reasoning for not getting a smart TV.
A signage TV with a streaming stick/box is perfectly fine for what I need. Jellyfin does not care what I'm playing.
Edit: Also, I did not even notice that there was no option to reject this. It is just a close button. There is no way this shit is enforceable.
I haven't looked into it, but there's got to be some open source firmware for a lot of these TVs, right? To improve the UI and remove all spyware and bloatware?
Smart TV was always a dumb idea. Better to control your own equipment.
The worst part is that all these Smart TVs run Linux, whose GPL license was explicitly designed to prevent this sort of user-hostile bullshit. Unfortunately, because the Linux contributors decided to stick with version 2 of the license instead of converting to version 3, it's stuck with a loophole that allows companies to get away with this abuse.
It's a goddamned travesty.
The GPL ensures user software freedom for us to remove this crap by requiring them to share their source code. Using Linux doesn't mean they have to follow the GPL unless they make modifications to it.
You need every software contributors to agree to a license change unless the license gives an upgrade option. Most contributors had no choice but to use GPLv2 as it wasn't "GPLv2-or-later" to start with, maybe it was posdible at one point but they didn't want to anyway.
They are. But not for customers.
There is nothing so pure and good that rampant greed can't ruin it.
I wish there were dumb options but since they're all subsidised with loads of ads, they're either unaffordable or plain unavailable. They just don't make them for the consumer market anymore, there's no demand for it. So they took advantage of that and market the dumb TVs as business TVs at huge markups, like 5+ grands for basic 4K no HDR no VRR no nothing, and they won't even sell it to you without a registered business account.
Those displays are not televisions - they are for menus at restaurants. They cost a fortune because they are low volume, high reliability devices that come with service contracts and repairable components.
I don’t connect my TV to the internet. Problem solved.
I used to develop smart TV apps.
I still only own dumb TVs. I do not need that bloat.
Technology in general is supposed to make our lives easier. It seems many things these days do the opposite.
Always was. Just took a little time for the reasons to be apparent to more people.
They are better, but you foolishly assumed that they meant better for the consumer, not better for the seller.
I think you're qualified for a full refund in most regions if you disagree with the new terms.
Send them a letter via registered mail stating that upon receipt of said letter they waive their right to waive your rights.
That sounds like some sovereign citizen thing
Similar things have worked in countries that aren't so under the thrall of the mighty corporation. I recall some guy in ... Russia? who struck out and reworded a bunch of penalty clauses for a credit card offer he got and mailed it back to the bank, which accepted it and issued the card. Cue much hilarity as he racked up a bunch of charges and then got it thrown out in court. (Actually, here's a link.. They eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.)
Anyway, I live in Australia so my response to all these kinds of attempts at removal of my consumer rights is a drawn out "yeah, nahhhh"
Uno reverse card
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.
Just an FYI, although they aren't physical products like this Roku, many apps and digital services have added the very same binding arbitration clauses recently.
The McDonald's app for one. I ended up deleting the app after it tried to force me into binding arbitration and I didn't want to go through to opt-out process for marginally cheaper, shitty food, so I just deleted the app altogether and haven't eaten there since November.
Watch out for it if you drive for doordash or ubereats as well. I opted out of both, although they claimed you couldn't opt out in an new contract when you didn't before (a bunch of BS, if the current contract you are about to sign says it supercedes all others, you can't make the lack of an opt-out on a previous contract hold up).
On-going services might make sense for these shitty enough clauses, but to be strong armed into it for physical product you bought free and clear ... Disgusting.
It's like all these companies are locking themselves down to minimize legal exposure because they know that their services and products are getting more awful or something.
I legit don't know how binding arbitration can be legal.
Agreeing to terms of actual usage of the product, I understand. Like for a pogo stick, assuming your own risk of injury.
But I don't know how they can legally just say that suing is impossible.
I do not think that this can be legal, if you have already agreed to terms.
Surely they can just say from now on, thing you have used for a year is not usable unless you promise not to sue us.
Surely that ship has sailed?
Where I live, the way contract law (at least in regards to employment) works is generally you can't alter terms (by imposing additional restrictions) after both parties have agreed to it unless there is some form of compensation provided for the restricted party in exchange for agreeing to those additional restrictions.
EULAs are a magical playground in USA. If you agreed in initial terms that they can change this document in future with or without notifying you, then they are within their rights to change it.
Urgh.
"My child, a minor, clicked agree when trying to use the TV I paid for. I have never seen this EULA."
Yeah, I believe I heard there was a case that had proved that judges have no interest in holding people to EULAs.
Did you read it? That first paragraph’s last sentence refers you to the section which tells you how to opt out.
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.
It would be hilarious if a lot of people did this. And requested confirmation of receipt, and kept stalking them for these confirmations.
Maybe the letter should be on a0, and a separate one for each member of the household.
I've requested confirmation and have only gotten it once or twice.
What I've started doing is actually just sending them their same exact terms via their corporate registered address (regardless of their instructions) with the arbitration clause and jury trial waiver and just about anything I don't agree to removed. I tell them so long as they continue to provide the services to me, that they implicitly agree to the terms I'm sending them, with any further updates requiring them to send a registered (not certified) letter.
I intentionally do not provide any way for them to identify my account except for the return address.
I figured if I ever had to go to court, one of these things would happen:
So far, no company has ever written me back or turned off my access to the site.
I suggest everyone do this because these forced arbitration clauses are very anti-consumer and we need to start clawing back our rights.
I'm definitely doing it. Worth the cost of a stamp.
I don't even have a Roku TV just an Ultra hooked up to a monitor so not a lot to lose but it's the principal of the thing.
Any reasonable judge will look at this clause and come to the conclusion that Roku is not acting in good faith. It's so blatantly scummy to have a user have to mail in an opt out request on a consumable's EULA update that the consumer never asked for long after the initial purchase.
It’s enraging because information like the account email and TV model are sitting there available to the Roku OS. These could easily be appended to an email at the touch of a button, or transmitted to Roku Legal in an even more efficient programmatic way.
But noooooo, they need to force you to write the shit down with a pen because they know you won’t bother. Next time they want to sell you something, though? That’ll be one click.
I’d love to see a judge throw the book at some company for this kind of horseshit. Last time I refinanced my house I saw the page about opting out of marketing somewhere in the cloud of papers I signed, and meant to go back to it. I did, but it had such a complex table of options that I said to myself “I need to look at this with my glasses.” And then of course I forgot to do that and of course they sold my information everywhere. This is my own credit union that I’ve been with for 12 years, too.
That's an overly complicated procedure to opt out.
You gotta opt in, then send a fucking letter with a bazillion nitty gritty information.
First of all, shit like this should be made an example of, and it should as easy to opt out than to opt in. Otherwise, it is predatory
What an absurd burden to put on someone. If I can opt in electronically, I should be able to opt out electronically.
Which is the law in countries with consumer protections.
Surprised they don't want it hand-delivered at the top of a mountain somewhere.
In my pro consumer country there is an amazing law that states that any contract cancellation procedure cannot be more difficult than the contract sign-up procedure. This means it can’t be through different channels or have more steps.
I know what I'm doing tonight. Once I have the letter with all the details in alignment I'll post an update here to help others.
Got that letter?
If you own one of those and you're a US resident, contact your state attorney general.
Ken paxton? Lulz, he'd probably come after me for saying anything.
Before I even finished reading that comment I thought, “Fuck. Ken Paxton would probably just take it as inspiration to accept money from Roku.”
Congrats to those in other states though. I am envious.
Good advice, depending on state. I think there is something in MD law that says you can't sign away your legal rights.
I just got that on my Roku device and clicked through it without even realizing because it was the exact type of pop-up and position and timing as when it informs me that the micro SD card has successfully mounted, and it took my brain a second to register that 1) the pop-up was much larger, and 2) I briefly saw a word that looked like "arbitration"
How can this be a legally enforceable contract?! Especially considering if I didn't agree, my device that I've already paid for and have been using would cease functioning and they sure as hell aren't going to refund my purchase from years ago if I refuse
How can this be a legally enforceable contract?!
I'd like to think it can't be but it's the US so who knows.
Changing the terms after buying the device and in a way that your kid could accept them by hitting ok on the remote is bonkers.
Yeah, that's some dystopian neo-feudalist horseshit I'd only expect to fly in a bunch of the world's most corrupt shit holes, including the USA.
They have more money to spend on lawyers is how.
I hate that this is so true
They can't prove you read it, maybe your child pressed accept. This is not legally binding in Europe
This is called a Deceptive Pattern (or dark pattern). This feature worked exactly as intended in your case.
It doesn't matter if it is legal or enforceable. Who's going to stop them?
You could conceivably have a basis for a lawsuit against them if you do not agree to the binding arbitration for their disabling of the hardware that you had purchased from them.
However, do not forget that binding arbitration is still a legal process and does require them to treat it with the same gravity as a court trial would otherwise require, so even if you have agreed to The binding arbitration limitation, should something go awry you still have grounds and a space to take them to court, and in many cases, binding arbitration is much faster and more convenient for all parties than using the court system.
In USA, EULA are god. You have no rights other than right to give them money.
I got this yesterday, as well. There's no way this could hold up legally, right? Like my 7 year old could easily just click through that, no way this is a legally binding contract to forfeit jury rights and right to sue.
..right?
The fact that this is actually legal makes me glad to live in the EU. Damn, this shit is bleak.
It probably isn't legal most places. EULAs are already considered fairly flimsy in terms of enforcement, but changing an EULA after you've already bought a device, in such a way as to reduce your statutory rights, is almost certainly a complete non-starter.
Watched the other day video about always online games being terminated and Ross, guy behind "Freeman's mind" is starting world wide legal action against Ubisoft and some others. He talked specifically about EULAs in US and they are like promises from god. If you accept them suing the company for anything covered there becomes a nightmare. Here's a link. It's a bit longer watch, but worth it. But in short, in USA what can be written in EULA is almost unlimited. Example he gave was that you can accept for game developer to have the right to kill your dog if you buy their game and they would have a complete right to do so, you wouldn't be able to call the cops on them for animal abuse until you disproved and had EULA brought down on court first.
Document he's linking to which describes this whole mess in regards to games and pre-orders and similar. But also touches on EULAs.
Is it really legal, though?
IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt, but from my understanding, Its legal, though it may be unenforceable. If I want to sue them, they will say I agreed to arbitration in the contract, I will ignore that and continue to file. They will counter-file that I agreed to arbitration by accepting the EULA and that the case should be dropped, I will counter-file that I only agreed to it under duress because it was either agree or throw away my TV and that the arbitration clause is invalid because of X, Y or Z. At this point either the Judge will decide to listen to arguments from both sides then make a decision or will decide based on the undisputed facts presented by both sides and will either invalidate the EULA and allow the lawsuit to continue, or will uphold the EULA and drop the case with prejudice, or will allow me to make another argument and drop the case without prejudice allowing me to re-file with a better case.
The issue is, is it worth it to spend that kind of time and money for it in the first place? If you don't have an open and shut case and can't file in a state where you can make Roku pay the legal fees, in general whatever you're trying to accomplish will cost you more than just getting off their ecosystem, which is what they are counting on. Since you would have to sue them just to see if you can sue them, it just adds extra time, money, and effort into suing them that it is more likely to deter people from actually suing and instead choosing to arbitrate under their terms which, depending on the ethical considerations of the company, could be fair or it could be heavily skewed in their favor. At which point you can decide at that point if you should sue and then will also have any evidence acquired about an unfair arbitration in the filings as well.
Either way, the legality is perfectly legal to be in an EULA, its enforceability though is mostly only backed by how much time, money, and effort it would take to bypass it. Like if there is an open door with a sign saying "Please use next door" and the next door leads to the same place as the open door. Most of us will just use the next door because its not worth the effort to deal with whatever issue might occur if we used the open door. But if the "next" door is locked, we'd just go in the open door because its no longer worth the effort to deal with procedures the company wants.
Pretty sure EULAs are unenforcable in the US since nobody can reasonably be expected to read every single one of them for every one that they agree to.
I think it's more that you have to purchase the item before you can agree to the EULA. That said, it's extremely rare for anyone to try and challenge them in court, and when they do they pretty much always settle so the court can't actually demand any changes to EULAs.
Analysis of how EULAs are reviewed by courts depends primarily on whether the particular EULA is determined to be a contract for the sale of goods, and thus governed by the terms of the UCC, or whether it is a contract for services, and, accordingly, governed by the common law.' Although it may be of little practical import (because even those contracts governed by the UCC can be modified to waive a consumer's traditional Article 2 inspection and rejection rights), it is important to understand the framework by which software-and by extension videogames - are analyzed by courts in the United States.
From the document Rated "M" for misleading.
They are even more so on the US, maybe you were thinking of the European Union? Cause in the US you have no rights if the EULA says so.
In USA, they can supersede laws in some cases. Technically they can't but you'd have to prove they do before you can sue the company. If you agreed in EULA that Roku can kill your dog if you stop paying for their service, they are within their right to do so. You'd have to go to court to free yourself from the EULA obligation first before Roku can get any punishment for killing an animal. Incredibly stupid.
Yeah right lmao
So, all these companies are wasting money getting their lawyers to write up (and maintain) these documents that we all have to agree to, but they're totally unenforceable because... they're too wordy?
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell.
Yup.
Because here's the thing, lawyers are super expensive and these corporations have in house lawyers for handling anyone that wants to sue. They'll happily argue the validity of the EULA because they know just getting through the pretrial phase will cost you tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Corporations have weaponized this fact at every chance they get.
It's the exact same reason why companies in California and other states make employees sign noncompetes, even though they are explicitly unenforceable. It's so the company can financially punish you even if you are in the right.
Dude this is totally how it works.
You have general counsel, firms on retainer, etc and the cost is amortized over all legal needs... And 99.999% of users will never even THINK about legal action nevermind actually pursue it.
It's the same reason they send C&D letters....an ounce of legal effort (which you likely already have to buy anyway as a corporation) is worth a TON of consumer litigation protection.
They are unenforceable for more reasons than that. They also can not prove that you agreed to it, only that someone did.
Also, they can't change the terms of your previous purchase after the fact. They can make you agree to something new going forward, but if they make your current device a brick because you don't agree (which they are doing here), then they need to reimburse you for causing the loss of use of your device that you already purchased and was working under the previous terms.
Surely corporations aren't being intimidating to take the uneducated for a ride when they dispute it. Surely.
The companies have the burden to provide them to the user. If they forget something, somebody loopholes them in court, they will lose.
The EULA is more of a rolling document, and something like a "We are legally obligated to provide this, so we better cover our asses in the process." legal doc.
What even the point of making laws and regulations if corporate can just force you to waive all your rights?
That's one big difference between the US and the EU law. In the EU, they can't.
A court wouldn't uphold this
and by the time the court throws it out the TV I paid for has been disabled for months and I'm out a ton of money and time. A lot of people will just agree because defending your rights in this country is very expensive and cumbersome. They're counting on this idea.
There's a nonzero chance the SCOTUS would.
That's why unalienable rights are so important.
thats what the law is becoming. a way to enforce the will of the corporate state.
Because the laws and regulations have been influenced by lobbying by large corporations to suit them best.
I still can't comprehend why American just accepting that "lobbyists" are a normal thing.
Isn't that literally bribery in broad daylight to influence laws making decisions? And the fact that a corporate can "sponsor" politicians. You're supposed to making those laws to keep the corporate in line, not taking their handout.
Are there any other countries with the same "lobbying" practice?
These are fun, Australians can’t waive any of their rights, including consumer rights and rights to access the courts.
Also, it's illegal in Australia for a business to make "false or misleading representations" about those rights. Maximum penalty is 10% of annual revenue.
The contract isn't just unenforceable, it's just straight up illegal.
Wait, does that mean we could actually see some companies get punished for making improper terms and conditions?
I would really like to see companies get strongly punished for EULAs/etc that turn out to be illegal/improper.
Shit like this is why my LG C1 is restricted to LAN access only in my router (local network for automation purposes) and can't communicate with the internet.
Ditto with my printer. Print over LAN: sure. Printer connect to internet: hell no, that's the first-party version of printer malware.
Especially when printers ask you to waive your class action rights just like this.
Makes sense, when they illegally push straight up malware that sets the ink flow rate to 0 should non-geuine ink cartridges be detected. This will destroy/clog the print head if attempting to print for too long.
Yes, I reverse engineered your fucked up Linux 2.4 (!) based firmware, Epson. Your printer is printing nicely offline with refillable cheap ink. Fuck you, I won.
Sorry about the rant, it had become personal at one point.
I took the wifi chip and antenna right out of a roku TV. I don't even want it broadcasting its MAC out to the world, fuck that
Here in Brazil, EULAs (they are called adhesion contracts here) can only deal with the way service is provided and cannot limit consumer rights in any way. Even if the contract has these types of clauses, they are considered void by default.
These types of things never fly here.
Isn't this equivalent to those trucks that have "stay back 300 feet - not responsible for damage" signage, when in reality they are legally responsible if their load isn't secured?
it certainly hasn't been tested in court yet, at least not that I've been able to find. These EULAs are often just corporate wishlists and until they go in front of a judge it's difficult to know what provisions will actually stick. I hope that they don't have the ability to bait and switch EULAs but this is America, some judge somewhere might take it upon himself to protect my freedom to have my TV remotely disabled after I pay for it.
These EULAs are often just corporate wishlists
Then I really wish there were regulations over what kinds of things you're allowed to put in a contract. If there were punitive measures for putting things in contracts that anyone should know is not enforceable, then maybe companies would think twice before putting language like this in.
it certainly hasn't been tested in court yet, at least not that I've been able to find.
Arbitration is allowed in an EULA and has been sanctioned by courts.
Most agreements are considered enforceable as long as their content is reasonable, you have been granted sufficient notice to accept or decline the agreement, the agreement is not unconscionable, and it doesn't violate the UCC.
legally responsible if their load isn’t secured?
kek
I thought I linked to my blog post about it, but it just used the image
Roku’s Ultimatum: Surrender Jury Trial Rights or Lose Access to Your TVs
I wonder why Roku make you sign this agreement out of the blue. I think they're about to drop either an acquisition announcement, or news they were hacked.
I of course signed it like an idiot. I hate this cyberpunk present.
Was it your or you're 8 year old who was just trying to watch some cartoons? 🤔
You are right there is something coming though
I'm really surprised about this. Amazon got called on their arbitration clause so much that they removed it because it was so expensive.
Roku is practically asking for people to do the same to them. They could even do it about this clause, IMO. (I am not a lawyer.) This is a really dumb clause to have these days.
Once again, Stallman was right. (Also Corey Doctorow)
Smart TV's are stupid scams. I quit watching the big screens in 2018. My phone is larger, at the distance I am comfortable laying down, than the 72in screen on the wall in front of me right now in my family's living room. In the USA, without LUFS regulations, I'm not interested in watching any content embedded in corporate media advertising streams. (Tom Scott LUFS YT, Wikipedia: LUFS)
Mate, the eye strain of staring at a screen 5" from your face is monumentally higher than being able to relax your vision while staring at a monster screen.
I've been saying in other threads; if it has an internet connection you don't own it, you use it with the parent companies permission
That's not a great metric. Plenty of devices connect to the Internet without sacrificing user privacy or freedom. It's not connectivity that ruins the product, it's where on the Internet that product connects, and if you are allowed to have control over how the product works.
We need to have better literacy about proprietary software, walled gardens, automatic updates, and the consequences to the user experience if you become dependent on these kinds of products.
But I don't have much faith. Microsoft puts ads on the start menu and inside of Solitaire, and Windows remains solidly the most popular OS. People overwhelmingly let enshittification happen without serious resistance.
Plenty of devices connect to the Internet without sacrificing user privacy or freedom
If they do, it's only because the company allows it and all that is needed for that to change is one management decision.
Technically according to USA law you don't own anything, ever. You own the medium, like plastic on CD, but not the data on it. You don't own the music you own the right to reproduce recording for your own personal and enjoyment. By subscribing they are not selling you the access to service, they are giving your the right to use it for set period of time.
If you don't have admin, and arguably source code, you don't own it.
It should be illegal to make some give up the right to litigation.
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.
Any lawyers out there who can speak towards the three bolded parts?
The real question is what is Roku doing that might necessitate a jury trial in the first place.
The answer is spying and selling all your data to advertisers. Using ACR they can tell everything passing through that box and display adverts accordingly. Just what you want when watching a DVD.
At least in Australia, Consumer Law means you have grounds to walk the TV back for a full refund.
I think its up to 12 months.?
Depends on the price. I was able to return a 13 month old iPhone when apple announced the CSAM scanning (that they eventually abandoned) - I got a full refund. The phone costs enough that ACL considers it should operate for at least 2 years.
The bigger thing here is no class arbitration or other representative proceeding. A lot of law firms do arbitration now against companies either with class arbitration or just thousands of individual arbitrations filed en masse. I wonder if this protects them from even the latter approach? It would be shitty if it forced you to do all the legwork on the arbitration yourself.
In any case I get this is happening now and why it's such a huge ultimatum is they know they're about to get hit with a ton of Video Privacy Protection Act suits. Turns out in the late 80s the US made video service providers that share video watching/rental/purchase history open to actual damages of $2500. So in the last year or two a ton of law firms have started filing class actions and arbitrations against all the streaming services and platforms.
If I recall correctly that law was quickly passed when a Congressman's video rental history was leaked.
Recommendations to purchase a smart TV but never connect it to a network are futile, as well. Just like Amazon devices, smart TVs will find an open SSID and then phone home for updates without your knowledge.
My recommendation, when these kind of topics come up, is: either exchange your smart TV for a dumb one, or go to an electronics repair shop to have a board or two exchanged (depending on the make and model, older dumb components may be direct-ish replacements for smart ones).
EDIT: Another option? Try a projector! I was looking for dumb TV options online after writing up this comment, and someone on an old Reddit post recommended it. Great idea.
2nd EDIT: Someone else also recommended buying digital signage, another solid dumb display option.
Where do you live that you have free wifi all around?
Newer monitors are also good options. Usually they have enough HDCP compliant ports these days and none of the bullshit.
Pair with a sound bar or surround sound system and you got a great setup.
Recommendations to purchase a smart TV but never connect it to a network are futile, as well.
Not necessarily. Never connecting it to the internet is much better advice than trying to block it's connections. After that it's not (usually) difficult to open the back of the TV and simply disconnect the wifi adapter itself. In my experience it's either a separate board connected by a ribbon cable or the same type of wifi adapter that is commonly found in laptops. If the antennas can be accessed then so can the adapter.
Yes, great advice. Open a high voltage device and play with its internals while voiding your warranty instead of checks notes... not giving it your Wi-Fi password.
If my TV has been finding open wifi networks for updates, it sure hasn't made me aware of it. I've heard a lot of people say that they do this, but I've yet to see any proof that it's happening.
"Dumb" TV + PC + 🏴☠️. life is good
That’s what I have always done. I tried a Firestick once and found it terrible and tedious. Especially compared to M&K. I have a monster ass commercial quality smart tv and it will never access the internet on it’s own.
There are no dumb TVs if you want e.g. OLED. The closest you can get is a smart tv that you never connect to the internet. If you like 4k HDR it will still be a major pain..
My Roku TV's been reset to factory and not allowed on the internet for a few years now. It's a TV. It displays shit that I give it over HDMI. If you desire more than that you're part of the problem. I work in IT and that's why my home has physical locks, a 30 year old thermostat, and cameras I own with recordings on a DVR I own.
In my experience, people that use the phrase “you’re part of the problem” so loosely are often the most miserable jackasses anyone ever allowed into society.
People just want neat things. It’s not wrong to want neat things.
It's not wrong, but it's just terribly short-sighted. You're giving greed-crazed companies total control over a device that you own and nobody else should be able to touch.
Shiny things come at a cost. Sure, it may look convenient and super cool to have all these features, but it's important to understand the trade-offs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg - we don't even know what kinds of malice these companies will think of 5-10 years from now when these machines are even more widespread and probably come with even more invasive anti-user hardware capabilities.
It's not wrong... it's just very very naïve.
I agree. That was why I originally bought the damned thing. Once I saw what it was doing on my network I decided "nope, that's enough from you" and reset it. I'm not saying people who also bought it and continue to use it as intended are dumb, I'm suggesting the device itself and what it does is evil.
The problem with not being part of the problem is that, in many cases, it means no longer being able to be part of vast chunks of society. Take it from me - I've been boycotting Big Media and most entertainment platforms for about a decade, and now I genuinely can't have any hobbies, besides of maybe activism, to share something with friends to begin with.
If that's the case, why not just go for a commercial display TV (like McD). They run virtually forever and you get them for very low prices.
Happen to have any examples? The last time I looked into this (around 5 years ago) everything that existed in this category was substantially lower quality and substantially more expensive.
Sure! I didn't know when I bought it that I'd come to this conclusion, but I learned over time. Been about 4 years or so since I bought it.
Interesting take... If we desire to use the full advertised features of a product we own we are part of the problem.
I suggest some self love and an open mind to learn and adapt. It's okay though not everyone is capable of this.
maybe try being less of a condescending ass
Huh. I don't actually think I said any of that. Sorry I made you feel that way.
I take it back- I guess I did.
Never allow internet access to unrooted devices. My TVs are airgapped.
Ah yes, airgap the streaming device.
I believe it is possible by simply attach a rooted device to the TV with streaming capability, like a computer, or a rooted nvidia shield.
Although I don't agree with OP that everything needs to be rooted, for example, my phone runs grapheneos without root, I do believe most rooted OS are more usable than proprietary OS like Roku.
It can still stream video over the hdmi port just fine. This is about containing the rooted malware inside the tv's firmware from exfiltrating and then self destructing.
My TV streams my shows just fine via my xbox
I just posted about this in another community. I'll just include the link below so I don't double post.
I haven't connected mine to the internet for a long time
This is why I don't buy "smart" TVs. They just want to data-mine you. And they can brick it whenever they want to, right over the Internet.
This is basically impossible unless you are buying commercial grade. Just buy whatever TV you want and never connect it to the internet.
This sort of thing isn't new but I've seen this particular one all over the place. Was there something different from this experience compared to the times that people have agreed in the past?
Opt out per the instructions!
They REQUIRE you to send them via snail mail.
It even specifically states that email is not valid.
My muscle memory is to hit power-right-ok to open youtube when I turn the tv on, most of the time without looking at it. The other day, it ended up still sitting on the default menu item after I did that. This must have popped up then. Something that can be dismissed without ever actually seeing it is certainly not enforceable.
Are there any good 4k 65"+ TVs without smart features? All the ones I see from LG Samsung Sony or other top rated TV manufacturers are smart TVs.
Don't they all essentially require internet access to be 'smart'? I have a LGTV (with WebOS, an app store, etc.) that I basically treat as 'dumb' by leaving it disconnected from our network.
Nowadays there are TV that requires internet connection to use the HDMI ports, I hope this trend NEVER take off.
Try look into the Samsung BEC-H. Its meant for signage so double check it has all the inputs you need but it comes in 65", 4k and no "smart" features.
I have a Samsung S90, and I was able to disconnect from my network after the initial setup. I also set it to default to the last HDMI input at startup, so I never see the TV OS.
I feel like this is subject to change, but a smart TV without an Internet connection seems to still be an option until they take it away.
This is suuuuuuuper common, most software makes you agree to some sort of arbitration clause. It doesn't mean that you can't sue them, it's just an obstacle to deter you.
Only where going to court could bankrupt you.
Every company has started doing that. Almost every EULA now has clauses forcing you to give up your right to class action lawsuits and jury trials and to use corporate-friendly mediation instead.
Hasn't that been a thing pretty much as long as EULAs?
No, it's been pretty common in the last decade or so. First they added mediation clauses mostly just to scare people into using mediation instead of suing. But once they realized that courts were enforcing the clauses even though most legal experts assumed that they weren't valid since most people couldn't reasonably expected to read EULAs much less understand them and they were being added to things that people didn't reasonably expect to have complex legal implications, they realized they could put other stuff in there and have it enforced. So now there's tons of shady stuff in some of them.
Same thing as those companies that would send you a check for like a dollar that looked like it came from a legit source, but really was a marketing campaign paying that legit source for their customer lists and to put their name on it, and in the signature line on the back they'd add a bunch of text saying you agreed to sign up for some expensive service or whatever. People would cash the check without realizing what it was and then the company would sign them up for something and it was allowed for a long time even though many legal experts said it shouldn't be legally binding.
That's why i use a LCD TV with a generic TV Box with Linux installed on It, lol.
So Roku is also a piece of shit too eh? I knew that their device I bought wasn't great but I thought it was just a cheap one. Glad I'm creating a media PC on Linux
I work for a streaming cable company and we keep getting calls about this. It's not us, its Roku. You have to use your tv remote. Sorry you threw it away. We emulate the basic functions, but why would we emulate an asterisk? You're cancelling because we can't fix a third party issue... gotcha.
What about the one sided ability to change a contract??
A year from now Roku pop up says "Click to Accept" , the text says **"this contract means you'll have to give us your first born child? ** My reasoning says if they can do one then they can do the other. There is nothing that would prevent them from adding 'fees', or 'subscriptions' or simply turning off the device. (!)
This is egregious. We bought something. In normal commerce, the contract was set in stone at that moment. The seller can't roll up 2 years later, change the contract, force you to agree before you can use your device, and then say , well maybe if you beg, you can opt out.
Wait you're both waiving rights? Does that mean they can't sue you for copyright or anything also?
What if you never connect it to the internet? Surely then it’s a just a dumb TV.
You'd never get this update...