this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
1514 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

60106 readers
1943 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 268 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Time for a class action suite.

[–] VictorPrincipum@sh.itjust.works 103 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Noooooooo, you just signed that right away! /s

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gork@lemm.ee 239 points 9 months ago (17 children)

Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.

Now it's the complete opposite.

[–] Technus@lemmy.zip 174 points 9 months ago (21 children)

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 67 points 9 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.

[–] LazaroFilm@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Computer monitors are dumb tv

[–] OR3X@lemm.ee 56 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Good luck finding a 65 inch computer monitor

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Toes@ani.social 137 points 9 months ago

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

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 119 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 50 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That sounds like some sovereign citizen thing

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] corymbia@reddthat.com 113 points 9 months ago

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

[–] catbum@lemmy.world 101 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] palitu@aussie.zone 84 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 76 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 64 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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 43 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 58 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 32 points 9 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

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Yarhar@lemm.ee 76 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 75 points 9 months ago (3 children)

If you own one of those and you're a US resident, contact your state attorney general.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 74 points 9 months ago (8 children)

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

[–] swearengen@sopuli.xyz 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Sami_Uso@lemmy.world 69 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Jackie_meaiii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 67 points 9 months ago (12 children)

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

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 63 points 9 months ago (36 children)

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.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh 62 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The fact that this is actually legal makes me glad to live in the EU. Damn, this shit is bleak.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 40 points 9 months ago (3 children)

It probably isn't legal most places. EULAs are already considered fairly flimsy in terms of enforcement, but changing an EULA after you've already bought a device, in such a way as to reduce your statutory rights, is almost certainly a complete non-starter.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 61 points 9 months ago (12 children)

What even the point of making laws and regulations if corporate can just force you to waive all your rights?

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

That's one big difference between the US and the EU law. In the EU, they can't.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 59 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

These are fun, Australians can’t waive any of their rights, including consumer rights and rights to access the courts.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Also, it's illegal in Australia for a business to make "false or misleading representations" about those rights. Maximum penalty is 10% of annual revenue.

The contract isn't just unenforceable, it's just straight up illegal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago (16 children)

As an IT guy: FUCK smart TVs, fuck them hard.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ConstantPain@lemmy.world 56 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Here in Brazil, EULAs (they are called adhesion contracts here) can only deal with the way service is provided and cannot limit consumer rights in any way. Even if the contract has these types of clauses, they are considered void by default.

These types of things never fly here.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 53 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Isn't this equivalent to those trucks that have "stay back 300 feet - not responsible for damage" signage, when in reality they are legally responsible if their load isn't secured?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] caleb@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago

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

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 45 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I wonder why Roku make you sign this agreement out of the blue. I think they're about to drop either an acquisition announcement, or news they were hacked.

I of course signed it like an idiot. I hate this cyberpunk present.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wccrawford@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months ago

I'm really surprised about this. Amazon got called on their arbitration clause so much that they removed it because it was so expensive.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-faced-75-000-arbitration-demands-now-it-says-fine-sue-us-11622547000

Roku is practically asking for people to do the same to them. They could even do it about this clause, IMO. (I am not a lawyer.) This is a really dumb clause to have these days.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 36 points 9 months ago

Once again, Stallman was right. (Also Corey Doctorow)

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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)

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 29 points 9 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 27 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›