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.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.

    Now it’s the complete opposite.

    • Technus@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ve heard that if you want a dumb TV, you buy a smart TV with input priority on the hdmi and never connect to the internet.

        How accurate is that?

        I wouldn’t know, as I’ve been blessed with a couple of dumb tvs from the golden age of dumb tvs for the last 10 years.

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think you’re qualified for a full refund in most regions if you disagree with the new terms.

  • Dave.@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Send them a letter via registered mail stating that upon receipt of said letter they waive their right to waive your rights.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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”

  • Lutra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • corymbia@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.

  • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

    • jackiemeaiii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not enforceable at all, but it’s an extra step of litigation that the average consumer can’t afford to wade through

  • catbum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • palitu@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

  • Eh?@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    “My child, a minor, clicked agree when trying to use the TV I paid for. I have never seen this EULA.”

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • sebinspace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s not wrong to think people are stupid for wanting pointlessly internet connected things either.

        • Vit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well sure, but we’re not talking about a washing machine or a refrigerator. Currently most media we watch is over the internet, so I at least don’t consider a TV with an internet connection “pointlessly” online.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Okay, well you are free to enjoy having your device bricked whenever the company you bought it from wants to.

    • gearheart@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

  • locuester@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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:

        • judge finds that the original terms are enforceable, which means I’m no worse off
        • judge finds that my amended terms are enforceable, which means it worked
        • judge finds both terms unenforceable and I can continue to sue them

        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.

  • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.