See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn’t use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don’t agree to their terms, then I don’t get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn’t be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn’t agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.

I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…

EDIT: Shout out to @testfactor@lemmy.world for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.

EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010@lemmy.world for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you’re good to rock and roll.

  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    IANAL, and not that it really makes this bullshit any better but…

    It’s unlikely that agreeing to terms of service that claim you waive rights to any class action lawsuit would actually hold up as legally binding in court. Many of these agreements aren’t reply binding are already legally gray… Plus, universally vaguely signing your legal rights away in any contract doesn’t hold any water either.

    I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

    • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      IANAL either, but I’m pretty sure you are correct. I put it in another comment somewhere, but I’m more upset about not being given a choice to refuse the change rather than the actual change itself. I don’t mind signing the waiver at amusement parks, or to buy a car with no warranty. I just want to know what I’m agreeing to, and I don’t like folks pulling the rug out from under me or changing the deal.

      The situation feels like if I were to drop out of college, I would be given electroshocks until I’d forgotten anything learned in class.

      • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, I totally agree with you, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say “if we fuck you over, you can’t do anything about it”.

        I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn’t hold any actual water so don’t be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who’s a little more torn.

        But yeah, Idk that I’d keep the device at that point either.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

      Could the agreement not force OP to use arbitration if they wanted to sue, making it economically infeasible to do so themselves?

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pretty much all arbitration clauses require the manufacturer to pay for the arbitration. That’s the consideration offered by the manufacturer to get the customer to waive their rights to sue.

        It’s actuaoworked out well for me I the past, because once you start going down the arbitration path, they’re more likely to just give you what you want since that’ll be cheaper than the arbiter in the end win or lose.

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

          And as Elon found out, mandatory arbitration clauses can come back to bite you, like when a large number of claims have to be paid for separately all at once and can’t be consolidated to save costs.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s like the waivers at skihills etc. Lots of stuff not legal, but it gives then deleting to waste your time and money on and the can afford the lawyers better than you can