This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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
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.
Computer monitors are dumb tv
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'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.
Some smart TVs need to be connected before they'll even start.
The key thing is to make sure you look into that stuff before you buy.
My TV is from the before days, and when it dies I'm not sure what the plan will be. Possibly a large monitor at 3x the price.
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.
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.
They are. But not for customers.
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
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.
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.
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
Surprised they don't want it hand-delivered at the top of a mountain somewhere.
What an absurd burden to put on someone. If I can opt in electronically, I should be able to opt out electronically.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
If you own one of those and you're a US resident, contact your state attorney general.
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It should be illegal to make some give up the right to litigation.
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.
If I ever have a device connecting to open networks by itself I'm snipping its wifi antenna
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.
