Roku disables TVs and streaming devices until users consent to new terms
Roku disables TVs and streaming devices until users consent to new terms
Roku users around the country turned on their TVs this week to find an unpleasant surprise: The company required them to consent to new dispute resolution
You're viewing a single thread.
Outrage over ticking a checkbox? Was anything in the updated TOS worth being pissed about or are people just that fucking lazy? The article not having the exact wording of the changes but talking about the dispute resolution arbitration--that's in every TOS for pretty much everything ever isn't mandatory and doesn't say you can't sue--is a bit suspicious.
Dude already had to update the article because he misunderstood one thing already. This reads like the knee jerk reaction of a random person which belongs on a blog, and not a news article that belongs on a news outlet site.
If you can't see that the issue is that the TOS could include anything the company wants and that disagreeing means the device I already paid for is intentionally bricked then I don't know what to tell you.
I have a great business idea - sell a roku-like device for half the price and a .99 cent subscription fee. Then when I've captured the market I force them to accept draconian new terms that cost way more or I brick the device. By then it's too late and I can suck all the money out of it from the people that can't switch.
And if they don't like it? Too bad; they signed away their rights to sue.
It's a foolproof plan! As long as I don't get shot in the street but justifiably angry customers.
They've always been able to do that; it's often the very first fucking paragraph of a TOS. If you're just now noticing it I don't know what to tell you.
What flavor is that boot you're licking? Must be pretty tasty.
I don't agree with the practice; but at this point it's not like you can do shit about it unless you're building your own devices. Not that anything illegal added to a TOS would be upheld in court anyway... I'd love to see someone actually sue on this issue, but nobody upset about it seems to have the money or willingness to do so, considering it's been a thing for decades.
Besides: that wasn't the point the article was making, either, which is what I have issue with; The shoddy journalism.
but at this point it’s not like you can do shit about it *except not buy products that do it and tell other people about it so they can do the same just like we're doing in this thread you defeatist weiner
except not buy products that do it
Good luck with that. Everything but food does it. Naive idealist who thinks doing too little, way too late is gonna change a damn thing.
if there was actual choice involved you might have a point but it doesn't really matter what changes when you don't have the ability to decline.
but for the record I believe this update removed your right to legal recourse and forces you through binding arbitration, so yes, this one does have something worth being pissed about.