The devices those users paid for? That should be illegal.
I’m pretty sure this won’t fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this “feature” was not advertised, and they’re not being denied access to a product they purchased. It’s clearly coercive.
However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas.
deleted by creator
When are we gonna finally nail companies for using underhanded and coercive tactics with consumers?
Oh, never? Okay then.
Europe is doing it. Look at Apple vs Spotify, as well as Apple forced to open their app stores to 3rd parties. Those are consumer oriented laws. In the USA, lobbying prevent those from happening.
When we make lobbying illegal in
this countrythe United States
There should be a law that any change of T&C after the purchase of a product gives the customer the option to refuse the terms and get a full refund of that product, no matter how old it is.
I have a smart light switch I can’t use anymore because they updated the app to force you to make an account to use it and I refused since it worked fine for the last 3 years without them needing to sell my data.
Enshittification continues. I used to evangelize roku bc I want a dumb TV. I guess that’s no longer valid.
Dude it’s a terms of service update, it’s not like watching ads on a subscription you already pay for.
The terms of service update made you sign away your rights to sue the company if they refused to honour the warranty, that’s what people are upset about
I know, I read it, and those words mean absolutely nothing. You and I will never be affected by it. It’s like a random passerby waving sage at you and telling you they’ve disturbed your aura.
I promise you practically every TOS you’ve ever blindly clicked through said something very similar.
You are downvoted, but you are right that at least some do this
ToS are generally not binding as it’s not expected for the average person to actually read through the dense language. There is precedent for this
My kid consented. I think. Can she make binding contracts that she doesn’t tell me about because she’s looking for Blues Clues, or am I responsible for every OK she checks when I’m not present?
I let my cat step on the remote. Fucker doesn’t pull his weight, so if the lawyers come after him he’s on his own.
You know what. Pirate everything.
I have no idea how US contract law works. Even if you agree to something that says “we can alter the deal at any time”, when a change happens to the deal, don’t both sides have to benefit, rather than “agree to this change so that you can keep the same thing you had before”?
But don’t you see, the consumer surely benefits. After agreeing they get to continue using their tv under our new and wonderful terms of service. /s
