See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn’t use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don’t agree to their terms, then I don’t get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.
Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn’t be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn’t agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.
I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…
EDIT: Shout out to @[email protected] for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.
EDIT2: Shout out to @[email protected] for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you’re good to rock and roll.
I reached out to Roku support regarding this. The rep told me “why are you complaining. You are the only one.” He then disconnected the chat. I’ve reached out to my state’s AG to report this. No action so far but waiting. If there are enough complaints, that might help move the needle.
What Roku is doing should be completely illegal - bricking the product after purchasing it for full price if you don’t agree to waiving your rights.
Sounds like a class action lawsuit to me.
Sue them in small claims for the price of the device.
Sounds like a good way to get a new tv and move away from roku. They’re really piling on the ads lately and making their os really slow.
If they actually said that to you word for word that’s an open and shut case for suing them
Damn, had no idea roku chat could be that useless.
Inb4 it’s ChatGPT like Air Canada.
Anyone else getting radicalized because of this?
Yup. My LG TV has 85% of its features “disabled” until I accept new terms which is an acceptable middleground.
I wanted a high quality OLED display over 50inch, good luck finding one without voice control or adverts lol
85% of its* features
Edited the one character typo for you, the internet is saved.
Is this what Tucker Carlson meant by I’m radicalized? Us damn rich Americans and our smart TVs.
Woah, you have money…? Actual money to spend on wants instead of needs.
Molotovs are easy to make and solve a lot of problems, just sayin
When I have a problem, I just throw a molotov cocktail and BOOM. Now I have a different problem.
To be fair, your original problem has been solved.
(is a Good Place reference)
BOOOOORRTLES
That’s probably really cute and fun to think about. Unfortunately we don’t live in a comic book universe.
Exactly, no asshole in spandex is gonna stop you!
Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.
That’s a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.
Don’t do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.
you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin.
In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn’t doing their goddamn job.
No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.
If you think otherwise, let’s pretend you’re a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.
No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.
It’s at the very least coercion by ways of property damage, at least in sane legal systems.
Also it’s generally not the job of citizens to figure out which paragraph exactly to throw at an accused, that’s what police and prosecutors are for.
The parent commenter asserts that it is a crime. What I essentially said is “prove it”. I assert there is no law that makes this behaviour a criminal offence. Prove me wrong. Don’t say “Well, this is what the law should be”, tell me what the law is.
If you want to talk about what the law ought to be, write to your legislators. It’s not the FBI’s job to write the rules. They only enforce what’s already there.
I don’t think the behaviour is right, and it may be illegal in other ways, but it isn’t a crime, and if it isn’t a crime, reporting it to a law enforcement agency is just wasting your time.
and it may be illegal in other ways,
And it is the responsibility of law enforcement to figure that out. If I go to the police and say “that guy stole from me” and the actual criminal case ends up not being for theft but embezzlement, did I waste the agency’s time?
You don’t need to have a law degree to be entitled to file a complaint with the system.
By “illegal in other ways” I mean “creates a civil cause of action”. This is not something the police can help with. You don’t need a law degree to complain but I think you’re just being purposefully obtuse.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.
I think you’re likely right, but I think this is also why reporting it to the FBI is a waste of time. The FBI only deals with criminal matters.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation.
If I am a shop owner and sell you a washing machine, and then three days later come into your house with a baseball bat saying “sign this or I’ll destroy the machine”, did I commit a crime?
The thing they want you to coerce you into is civil, yes, but that doesn’t make coercion a civil matter.
“We can’t solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them.”
Crime is crime dude.
Piss off. You’re not even an American. Don’t tell us what to do with our FBI.
I am American.
Imposter! No Murcan would use “rubbish bin”.
“Offence” as opposed to offense, and “behaviour” instead of behavior are also non-standard for American English.
So I looked at his post history, and sure enough, there are multiple instances of “cheque” instead of check, “centralised” instead of centralized, and other obvious uses of British or Asian English.
Maybe NateNate60 is American by citizenship, but doesn’t appear to be a native American English speaker.
It’s almost as if being American and speaking languages are separate things!
deleted by creator
Way to sleuth!
Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn’t hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it’s so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It’s like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.
Edit: am I saying it’s right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you’re getting something for cheap, there’s probably a reason for it.
Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.
I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn’t be accepted.
I’m not saying it’s right for them to do this, it’s a shitty practice and I’d definitely be pissed off. What I’m saying is there’s probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don’t use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you’re paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.
There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah none of this is ideal for consumers.
One of the reasons so-called “smart” TVs are so much cheaper is because they are data-mining you.
deleted by creator
Dumb TVs are called “digital signage” now.
This is it. They’re a bit more expensive, but no BS, and they’re made to run 24/7, so maybe a little more durable, too.
Just never connect it to the internet, or (even better) set up a PiHole and block the TV’s telemetry requests. I say the PiHole is better because then you still get all of the benefits of a smart TV (like native streaming apps) without all of the horribly invasive data mining.
If you want the benefits of a smart TV without connecting it to the internet, then maybe a connected PC would be a better solution. Something like an Nvidia shield connected to the TV, while the TV remains offline. That way you can maintain control over the computer, instead of trying to control what the TV collects and sends.
After reading about Pi-holes for a long time Roku finally pissed me off enough to set one up. The company has been adding advertisements to their menus for years but a few months ago they added a whole new row of ads to their home menu. Of course they can’t be disabled. Enough was enough.
I set up Pi-hole on an existing Pi, monitored Roku traffic for a couple of days and blocked every single ad or “suggestion” they generate. Now the TV displays blanks instead of constant barrage of ads that Roku’s menu has become. Worth the trouble.
Their decision to become an advertising platform instead of the streaming platform I purchased has been good reason to never subscribe to a streaming channel through Roku again. The company won’t get a single dollar of revenue from me if I can help it. Yes, I know 3rd parties do pay Roku subscription fees, but I can’t do anything about those. I also have repeatedly recommended Roku devices for years, but I now tell people to avoid the advertising company. Fuck em.
The company won’t get a single dollar of revenue from me if I can help it.
I’m in the same camp as you after this Roku TV bricking stuff. I was able to work around it by disconnecting it and banning it from my network and then factory resetting the TV and not configuring network…but I’m done with Roku.
I’ll buy an Apple TV rather than a Roku Ultra if I have to…and I hate Apple.
I’m considering connecting up computers to my TVs and just streaming everything from a browser. It will be a little less convenient without a remote (at least initially), but way less annoying.
I used to do this before streaming services and it was not bad at all. At the time there was only one type of mini keyboard plus touchpad available, now there are a lot more options in that category.
It’s a little less convenient, but like you can also do things you can’t with no streaming box such as pirate live streams of channels from across the country for free.
Edit: you can also get usb-cec devices to make it so it switches inputs for you.
Computer monitors seem like one of the few options at this point.
deleted by creator
While your recommendation satisfied some of the requirements, here is my counter point to arguably the biggest factor to many consumers (figures may vary by region): Regularly priced 2024/3/3 $298 65 in Roku TV from Walmart USA while your recommendation has a 1395 USD MSRP, and actual sale price of $2200 (used at that) on Amazon as linked.
I especially liked that the Check on Amazon button for a $1,400 New 65" monitor links to a Used 27" monitor for $2,200.
Buy a smart one and never connect it to the internet.
I have a 4K Sceptre tv that doesn’t connect to the internet.
I mean, it’s cheap af and might not be for everyone. It works for me.
There really is no choice, you basically have to buy a smart TV.
However, even the Roku Smart TVs can be configured as plain old TVs. If you go through the initial setup wizard and just don’t give it a network…you’ll get a regular TV out of it.
I know that there are certain models out there that supposedly reach into your neighbor’s wifi and stuff, and who knows, but that seems a little extreme…at least most TVs nowadays can be rendered non-networked and then you can use them the other way.
Only if you connect them to the Internet. I’ve got an LG TV and I have never connected it to a network. But yeah, most of the Roku style TV’s are like that from what I can tell. They offer streaming services natively to entice people to connect them. TBH Samsung has been doing this for like decades.
Until they add their own mobile data connection so it transfers their analytics.
No need, just broadcast a local wifi signal and piggy back on your neighbors tv connection!
Time to break out the soldering station.
I don’t see how this could be legal at all and how any of those terms could be applicable. My 2 year old found the remote today and he loves buttons, so naturally he pushed every button on there. I thought nothing of it but saw something pop up and then disappear, I assumed it was an error or something from the button mashing, but I guess my 2 year old agreed to rokus new TOS.
deleted by creator
I would like to see legislation that forces optional recalls or refunds whenever TOS updates modify the usability and viability of a product.
Honestly I feel like the real reason they are working everyone down to the bone is so they don’t have time to go to small claims court. If everyone did that individually these companies would die so quickly.
I like everyone saying “but this is surely illegal!” as if these corporations actually care. At least in the US, it really doesn’t matter what the law says at this point.
Corporations will do what they want and the law will be modified to reflect that, this is the current status quo and it is going to take significant political action (specifically making rich people afraid again to piss the rest of us off too much) to make it change.
It’s just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don’t have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.
At this point, it’s like they’re trying to get everyone to pirate everything.
It’s just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don’t have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.
Call your House of Representative member and tell them that.
I also got this on my stand alone roku. And it’s forced arbitration. Only way to opt out is by sending a written letter saying you don’t agree. If I can be forced into an agreement with a click of the remote, opting out should be just as easy.
Sue in small claims for the cost of the device instead of sending a letter.
Take a brick to Roku until it agrees to your terms.
Yep. I got hit with this this morning when I turned on my TV before heading work.
I thought to myself ‘‘Well… I hadn’t planned on suing you but now I’m not so sure. Lol’’
Yeah. This is complete BS and has me looking at computer monitors for a suitable replacement. I went ahead and agreed to their terms and my TV still works great but when it comes time to replace it, I’ll be damned if I get another Smart TV.
Sucks this happened to you. If it is still under warranty, you should return it for a replacement or store credit. Complain that it has ceased to function.
A good set of advice is to never connect your TV to the internet. A cheap streaming box or HTPC does the same function, and doesn’t open you up to issues like this. Your TV is also almost certainly selling your viewing data if you have it connected to the internet.
While it’s good advice to never intentionally connect TV to internet, some devices bypass you if they can. I think it was samsung that would connect to any other samsung product and through them to the internet, even if the other product was in your neighbor’s living room.
That’s creepy
This is disturbing. I wanted to know more so I googled it but I found nothing. Where did you hear this?
Not sure of Samsung’s offering but it sounds very similar to Amazon Alexa’s sidewalk “feature”
Sounds like Windows “Delivery Optimization” for Microsoft updates as well.
Somewhere on Lemmy in the last two months. They had a link to a review about it. Sorry, there was a reason I hedged with “I think.”
Do you have a source for Samsung connecting to the internet via other Samsung devices?
Almost certainly - but that is what I agreed to when I bought the TV.
Like I said in the post, I’d much prefer dumb TVs, but they I can’t really find them anymore. Best I can do is buy a smart TV that’d won’t let you do anything (including selecting inputs) until you connect it to the internet, agree to their horrible anti-consumer licensing agreement. Only then to open up a different smart device product that will still steal my data and force me to give up my legal right to a class action? The current system is scam.
Do you have any recommendations for dumb TVs?
As someone in pro AV, here’s my recommendation for a dumb TV: A smart TV that you never connect to your wifi.
All that bloatware shit they install is what makes it cheap. At my job I can buy commercial displays (no crapware) at cost and it’s still cheaper to buy a consumer one.
Unless IP control is absolutely mandatory for you, it’s cheaper and easier to go consumer for displays
I’m pretty sure that you cannot use a roku-enabled device for any purpose until you agree to their terms of service, which just puts me back into the same boat.
Do you have any recommendations for actual dumb TVs?
Sceptre makes modern, affordable dumb TVs.
We found an answer! Thank you!
I’ve been searching online between comment responses looking for actually useful recommendations. It looks like Sceptre or LG are going to be good starting points. Between the two website, I’m leaning pretty heavily towards the Sceptre. I’m excited to here more from the person posting about the professional/commercial AV displays.
I have a sceptre, I love it. I got it on a black friday sale before covid, and it still works well. Some people have said theirs went crappy within a year or two, so check models and reviews that seem legitimate to figure out which ones are crappy.
Thanks for the heads up - will do!
EDIT: Out of an abundance of curiosity, what model do you have?
Any TV that you just don’t connect to the internet at all, ever.
Hmm, yes, I agree! Totally agree on this. No argument. I’m curious though - what TV would that be? What TV can someone buy today that doesn’t require an initial setup process that requires an agreement to certain terms and conditions prior to use?
Not trying to be hostile towards you in particular. I’m feeling frustrated with this answer because I am seeing it a lot (both online and in online searches right now), but I’m having some difficulty finding it actually useful advice. Many devices are setup from the factory to not allow use until agreeing to certain terms and conditions that must be agreed to before using the TV. I need to know which TVs - if any - do not require this. It is surprisingly difficult! I feel frustrated with this answer because it feels reductive & dismissive of the actual problem.
Again, nothing against you in particular. I’m just frustrated with this - seemingly reasonable but not actually applicable based on what I have been able to research online so far - answer.
I just bought a Roku smart TV and the first time I powered it on, it asked if I wanted to enable smart features by connecting to the Internet. I said no and it functions like a dumb TV now. There are a couple brands that still make dumb TVs but they are all fairly small and not great quality. Much better off researching which smart TVs can be easily disabled.
This is the point that I’ve been stuck on. There doesn’t seem to be clear, easily available, documentation on which models those are. However, I have been able to find many ramble-ly “old man yells at cloud” forum & social media posts (You know, like this one!) when a model doesn’t allow it.
Show me one piece of technology in your life that didn’t come with T&C that put you at a disadvantage against the manufacturer, I’ll show you ten fairies, a unicorn, and the herald of darkness.
My grandmother has a Philips dumb TV that doesn’t have any network connectivity and it still showed a click-through T&C. If you can’t get something like that in your region, ship from the EU, they’re still sold here.
I did a factory reset on my Roku several months ago and it works more or less like it would normally. Can’t set themes, which is the only big lack, but most of the important settings are still available. I know I can change the inputs and settings and stuff on it, though, because the hdmi1 is classed to PlayStation and 4 to computer.
I just did a factory reset and never connected to the internet. You can’t disconnect it from the internet without a reset, tho, or you’ll get “not connected” messages frequently, which I assume is what you are talking about.
You can try the display screens for menus and signs. They’re basically TVs without smart functions, aka dumb TVs.
Also without remote controls.
A non Roku Smart TV that you just don’t connect to the internet at all, ever
Not for a dumb tv but I own a newer Vizio. I actually use it as a huge desktop monitor through HDMI. The actual tv itself has never been connected to the internet. You could connect a streaming stick (roku, amazon, google) if you wanted to. I stream everything from the net. Vizio has a horrible “free” streaming tv service that tracks you. But you can still use the actual tv in other ways if you don’t connect it to the net. It will act as a dumb tv.
Until we have a federal privacy law that allows us to opt out of being tracked on every device, you have to “work around” the problems.Until we have a federal privacy law that allows us to opt out of being tracked on every device, you have to “work around” the problems.
Tracking needs to be opt-in, not opt-out. Privacy needs to be the default on all products.
I’ve had LGs for years (just got a new C3 OLED) and they don’t require internet access to function. My current OLED isn’t connected and works perfectly fine. I use a standalone Roku for streaming.
I think that I’m about to sold on LG TVs. Do you need to agree to any terms of service for initial setup? Additionally, do you have to navigate menus on startup to get to the streaming device? If so, that is ok, but very annoying if I can’t set it up to start on a particular input on power up.
LG have started sending some bullshit major updates to both of my TVs recently. The whole “home” interface is now sluggish and full of video heavy garbage I don’t want to see. They are still better than some smart platforms (looking at you Vizio, Samsung, and Roku), but I am far less pleased with them than I used to be.
I did have to agree to the terms during setup. You do NOT have to navigate menus on startup. It remembers the last input and defaults there. You can then easily change the input via the remote if needed.
Buy a really large computer monitor
That would be a good idea if there wasn’t a 100x difference in price for something actually tv size big.
Look for computer monitors instead of a TV.
Hi, I just bought a Roku streaming box. What should I do next?
None of this is cutting edge technology, so my setup isn’t for tech enthusiasts. I have an old 1080p TV and an HTPC. The computer has fairly silent parts to begin with, and I’ve further tweaked it to be even more silent. It’s also running Fedora, and Gnome seems to be surprisingly good for this purpose. A Logitech keyboard/touchpad serves as my remote.
This way, I can watch YouTube on my TV with ublock origin and spinsor block enabled.
I suppose you’re in the US so I don’t know if my answer fits but if the terms are against the law they are simply void: as in if you have a reason for a class action, no terms or contract can take it away from you
Most likely the terms say that you agree to go through individual binding arbitration rather than a lawsuit which the courts have found to be legal and enforceable. It’s really shitty and has become corporations favorite weapon to use against people, particularly because the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged. Contractually mandated arbitration really needs to be invalidated. Arbitration is a fine alternative if both parties want to go that route but it should never be forced on someone, particularly because of some bullshit EULA.
the arbitration companies are usually
fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challengedbeing paid directly by the company they’re arbitrating for, and therefore have a direct financial incentive to rule in favor of the corporation.FTFY. It’s way worse than just “being friendly” with corps. They’re on the corps’ payroll (indirectly, because the corp is paying for the arbitration,) and they know that if they continue to rule in the corps’ favor then the corp will continue calling them for future arbitration. There’s a tacit understanding between the arbiter and corporation, where if the arbiter favors the plaintiff then the arbiter won’t get called when the corporation goes to arbitration the next time.
afaik even those terms would be unenforcable if you can only see the TOS after buying the product, which would be the case here.
In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.
I don’t think so. I think in that case you would have to decline the terms and not use the thing. You would be entitled to compensation for the cost of whatever it was, like you can return it to the manufacturer or vendor somehow.
No OP is mostly correct, you cannot enforce the terms of a contract that a side of the party cannot see until after the transaction was completed making arbitration clauses hidden inside products invalid. (Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC)
However you are also somewhat correct as you are under no obligation to agree to the updated terms and conditions and will be govern by the originally concented contract until you do (Douglas v. Talk America). The company is allowed to stop providing their services to you however you might be entitled to your original purchase price depending on what the original terms and conditions said.
OK how do I go about getting Roku to refund me for my TVs? That sounds like an excellent approach to take.
Contact their support and escalate up the food chain until you get to someone who is in the legal department. If that fails get a lawyer and sue.
I’m really glad to live in the EU
This is an adhesion contract (no counteroffer or ability to negotiate terms, and it was made unilaterally) and probably will not stand up to a challenge in court. Of course, someone would actually have to sue / afford to sue. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)
Right it’s unenforceable however it’s plenty enforceable to poor people who can’t afford the legal fees.
Also, if outside of America, you probably would have a strong case for getting a full refund on the product if they did this.
It’s not (to my knowledge) a type of case that’s been specifically tested in court, but I think you could make a strong case that under Australian law, being required to agree to a new TOS that wasn’t there when you first purchased the device and which you don’t agree with would qualify as a “major problem”. The description of a major problem includes:
- is very different from the description or sample
- can’t be used for its normal purpose, or another purpose the consumer told the seller about before they bought it, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.
And when there’s a major fault, you as the customer are entitled to a full refund or replacement “of the same type of product”.
Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.
Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.
Couldn’t you just buy a new tv of a different brand from the same shop to offset the hit from the refund?
Yeah you could. Plus the store would probably try to reclaim the loss from the manufacturer.
Mac address ban the TV from your network and it should work but will no longer have Internet access. I just did this locally and it worked for the one, have to go out but will do it on the other one as well.
In order to prevent it from blinking, factory reset the TV once it’s unconnected to the network, and then make sure to not reconnect it to the Internet during the setup process. Afterwards, you’ll be stuck trying to find ways to replicate all of the built-in functionality of the TV like I now am. I had no idea the Chromecast w/ google TV’s apps had such shitty surround support…anyone know a good replacement device? The ONN streamers are similar in that they basically only put out PCM stereo for Hulu.
I have a dumb 4k tv. It’s cheap, it won’t meet everyone’s needs, but I really really really don’t want a smart tv.
It’s a Sceptre. Cheap enough that if it breaks it won’t break your heart to replace it.
Funny, I got a large Toshiba with fire TV because it was the cheapest option when I was looking, loaded with surveillance capitalism from Amazon.
Regretted it immediately, I would pay double for a dumb tv next time.
My tv is wonky as hell sometimes. I have to spray the volume button with contact cleaner from time to time or it turns itself up or down.
It’s fine other than that though haha.
Sceptre seems to be a popular brand mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the input!
IANAL, and not that it really makes this bullshit any better but…
It’s unlikely that agreeing to terms of service that claim you waive rights to any class action lawsuit would actually hold up as legally binding in court. Many of these agreements aren’t reply binding are already legally gray… Plus, universally vaguely signing your legal rights away in any contract doesn’t hold any water either.
I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.
IANAL either, but I’m pretty sure you are correct. I put it in another comment somewhere, but I’m more upset about not being given a choice to refuse the change rather than the actual change itself. I don’t mind signing the waiver at amusement parks, or to buy a car with no warranty. I just want to know what I’m agreeing to, and I don’t like folks pulling the rug out from under me or changing the deal.
The situation feels like if I were to drop out of college, I would be given electroshocks until I’d forgotten anything learned in class.
Yeah, I totally agree with you, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say “if we fuck you over, you can’t do anything about it”.
I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn’t hold any actual water so don’t be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who’s a little more torn.
But yeah, Idk that I’d keep the device at that point either.
Oh, I am definitely getting more paranoid as I get older, but that’s a different issue altogether. :D
IANAL either, but from my understanding of contract law, not only are terms waiving your rights not legal, a contract necessarily entails mutual agreement followed by an exchange of a thing of value. In this case, they are holding a thing that you own (which they made and designed to work in this manner no less) hostage until you agree.
I don’t think that counts as an “exchange of a thing of value”. There’s no exchange there, so it doesn’t even qualify as a contract. Even if they’re supposedly adding features along with the update, if you didn’t agree to the features being added then that can’t be considered forming a contract either. Also it’s not free agreement on your part, so it fails on a number of levels.
In fact this behaviour sounds like it’s arguably illegal to me. It could even be the subject of a class action lawsuit. I imagine the courts would be especially unfavourable to the idea that they were doing this specifically to ask you to waive your right to do so.
IANAL either, but my understanding ends at the first letter in IANAL and all it means to me is that you do anal
From the start of your comment it sounds like it’s mutual ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
However I appreciate your feedback and from now on I will make it clearer that I ANAL.
The legal term is “consideration”. To form a contract you must have three elements: Offer, consideration, and acceptance.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure it would help here. They would argue their consideration is whatever online services are tied to the product, but even without that, the contract isn’t being formed at this point (unless someone is going through first setup, at which point they can still return it). The contract was already formed and this is an amendment to those terms that the original wording likely has weasel words to permit.That’s not to say the consumer has no recourse, consumer rights are probably the best bet. If the previous terms don’t expressly grant them the right to take away access to all features in circumstances like this, it may be possible to find them in breach, but unfortunately EULAs are usually pretty toothless when it comes to penalising the vendor.
I would like to know how much of this has been tested in court, and how much has just been insinuated by the sheer volume of corporate lawyers insisting that they’re allowed to pull this crap. Because you can just write any old junk down, but lawyers don’t make the law.
Like, on the basic level of what a contract is, how can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms? How can an EULA be binding when the exchange has already happened and no agreement was made except the delivery of a product? How can consideration be forced on one party while their property is held ransom? And esepcially how can a fundamental legal right be waived in such a manner?
If this happened in any other sphere it would be understood as some kind of vandalism, theft extortion, or something. Like your builder just shows up one day, “Hey, I installed a new sink in your kitchen! You can’t use your house until you agree I’m not liable for anything that happens to your house from this point forward. No, you can’t read it, just sign it. This is a real contract because I gave you something of value.” I suspect this isn’t happening because it’s perfectly legal, but because the internet of things hasn’t matured enough to have strong legal precedents established and there hasn’t yet been a big public backlash against it.
I think the more they try to pull this garbage the more people will start to realise that this is bullshit and do something about it.
“How can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms?”
When it comes to business to consumer contracts, often they can’t, due to “unfair terms” clauses in a lot of consumer protection laws.In this specific case, the fact you can opt-out retrospectively (and inconveniently of course) is certainly due to those laws.
But like you say, it needs to be tested.
It’s like the waivers at skihills etc. Lots of stuff not legal, but it gives then deleting to waste your time and money on and the can afford the lawyers better than you can
I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.
Could the agreement not force OP to use arbitration if they wanted to sue, making it economically infeasible to do so themselves?
Pretty much all arbitration clauses require the manufacturer to pay for the arbitration. That’s the consideration offered by the manufacturer to get the customer to waive their rights to sue.
It’s actuaoworked out well for me I the past, because once you start going down the arbitration path, they’re more likely to just give you what you want since that’ll be cheaper than the arbiter in the end win or lose.
And as Elon found out, mandatory arbitration clauses can come back to bite you, like when a large number of claims have to be paid for separately all at once and can’t be consolidated to save costs.
