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.
Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.
Now it’s the complete opposite.
Smart TV was always a dumb idea. Better to control your own equipment.
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.
I think you’re qualified for a full refund in most regions if you disagree with the new terms.
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.
Send them a letter via registered mail stating that upon receipt of said letter they waive their right to waive your rights.
Pray they don’t alter it further
Time for a class action suite.
Noooooooo, you just signed that right away! /s
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
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.
No ones asking you to stick some shiny thing up your ass and walk around to see how it fits. If you don’t like these services don’t use them, for most of us the convinience of an Internet connected device that let’s you stream content published to the Internet is a value.
The issue is that the market has spoken. People want cool neat things and they want them cheap. Companies were able to lower the price of major devices by including all the always-online stuff as it generated revenue after the initial purchase.
Now everything comes with smart shit wether you want it or not, and for those that dont, the product they wish to have dosent exist or is more expensive. So… the argument that the “naiveity” of the masses is making things worse is valid.
“My child, a minor, clicked agree when trying to use the TV I paid for. I have never seen this EULA.”
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?
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 am not a lawyer, but would such a contract be enforceable? To my untrained eye this has a lot of similarity to the unenforceable NDAs I keep on hearing about when people try to bully others into being quiet about crimes.
It would be up to the individual court.
Or follow the directions in section 1(L), as shown in your screenshot. That section says you can opt out by sending a letter to Roku with your name, contact info, product, Roku account email address, and receipt (if applicable). If you feel so strongly about this, opting out is not hard.
Also those terms have been published since 2019 so I don’t know why people are only making a stink about it now. I’d bet that the dispute resolution agreement was in the same terms you agreed to the last time they changed, or when you first set it up.
