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.
Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.
That’s a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.
Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn’t hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it’s so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It’s like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.
Edit: am I saying it’s right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you’re getting something for cheap, there’s probably a reason for it.
Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.
I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn’t be accepted.
I’m not saying it’s right for them to do this, it’s a shitty practice and I’d definitely be pissed off. What I’m saying is there’s probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don’t use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you’re paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.
There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah none of this is ideal for consumers.
No problem, this is essentially the Human Cent-iPad South Park episode playing out in real life… Obviously without the shit eating and mouth to ass sewing 😂
Don’t do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.
you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin.
In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn’t doing their goddamn job.
No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.
If you think otherwise, let’s pretend you’re a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.
No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.
It’s at the very least coercion by ways of property damage, at least in sane legal systems.
Also it’s generally not the job of citizens to figure out which paragraph exactly to throw at an accused, that’s what police and prosecutors are for.
The parent commenter asserts that it is a crime. What I essentially said is “prove it”. I assert there is no law that makes this behaviour a criminal offence. Prove me wrong. Don’t say “Well, this is what the law should be”, tell me what the law is.
If you want to talk about what the law ought to be, write to your legislators. It’s not the FBI’s job to write the rules. They only enforce what’s already there.
I don’t think the behaviour is right, and it may be illegal in other ways, but it isn’t a crime, and if it isn’t a crime, reporting it to a law enforcement agency is just wasting your time.
and it may be illegal in other ways,
And it is the responsibility of law enforcement to figure that out. If I go to the police and say “that guy stole from me” and the actual criminal case ends up not being for theft but embezzlement, did I waste the agency’s time?
You don’t need to have a law degree to be entitled to file a complaint with the system.
By “illegal in other ways” I mean “creates a civil cause of action”. This is not something the police can help with. You don’t need a law degree to complain but I think you’re just being purposefully obtuse.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation. Because it’s a contract of adhesion, where the consumer gains nothing from the additional terms, cannot negotiate the terms prior to acceptance, and is forced into accepting the terms on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
In order for a contract to be enforceable, both sides need to be able to negotiate the terms, and both sides need to receive something meaningful from said contract.
I think you’re likely right, but I think this is also why reporting it to the FBI is a waste of time. The FBI only deals with criminal matters.
It’s not a crime per se, but it does open them up to civil litigation.
If I am a shop owner and sell you a washing machine, and then three days later come into your house with a baseball bat saying “sign this or I’ll destroy the machine”, did I commit a crime?
The thing they want you to coerce you into is civil, yes, but that doesn’t make coercion a civil matter.
“We can’t solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them.”
Crime is crime dude.
Piss off. You’re not even an American. Don’t tell us what to do with our FBI.
I am American.
Imposter! No Murcan would use “rubbish bin”.
“Offence” as opposed to offense, and “behaviour” instead of behavior are also non-standard for American English.
So I looked at his post history, and sure enough, there are multiple instances of “cheque” instead of check, “centralised” instead of centralized, and other obvious uses of British or Asian English.
Maybe NateNate60 is American by citizenship, but doesn’t appear to be a native American English speaker.
It’s almost as if being American and speaking languages are separate things!
deleted by creator
Way to sleuth!
I reached out to Roku support regarding this. The rep told me “why are you complaining. You are the only one.” He then disconnected the chat. I’ve reached out to my state’s AG to report this. No action so far but waiting. If there are enough complaints, that might help move the needle.
What Roku is doing should be completely illegal - bricking the product after purchasing it for full price if you don’t agree to waiving your rights.
Sue them in small claims for the price of the device.
Sounds like a good way to get a new tv and move away from roku. They’re really piling on the ads lately and making their os really slow.
If they actually said that to you word for word that’s an open and shut case for suing them
Sounds like a class action lawsuit to me.
Damn, had no idea roku chat could be that useless.
Inb4 it’s ChatGPT like Air Canada.
Sections 1(F) and 1(L) seem like the only ways out/around of this. (IANAL; the bolding emphasis was done by me.)
F. Small Claims. You or Roku may pursue any Claim, except IP Claims, in a small-claims court instead of through arbitration if (i) the Claim meets the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims court and (ii) the small claims court does not permit class or similar representative actions or relief.
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.
You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that’s not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this…
You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that’s not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this…
IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause (‘if applicable’)…
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.
Who decides what is applicable or not, and if the applicable scenarios are not listed in the terms, then are any applicable?
How does someone who is not a lawyer determine this so they can make an informed decision before they can agree to it?
IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause (‘if applicable’)…
It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.
It also depends on whether that clause is enforceable.
True, but enforceable or not is different from what I was asking about though.
For the sake of argument let’s say that it is enforceable. How then does a regular person, a non-lawyer, understand what they’re agreeing to, when verbiage is used like what I’ve quoted above.
IMO opting out is meaningless.
Despite the fact that attorneys are the primary beneficiaries of class action suits, the settlement dollar amounts are often high enough to give companies like Roku pause before they make consumer hostile changes. Not enough people will jump through Roku’s absurd opt-out hoops to make a class action suit worthwhile for attorneys, and thus those lawsuits won’t be filed in the first place, removing any risk to Roku no matter what BS they pull. They simply don’t give a fuck and don’t want that to end up costing them.
Of course the few people who opt-out can sue on their own, but the settlement dollars will be insignificant to a company the size of Roku.
Years ago being beneficial to the community was part of the mission statement of many corporations. That slowly disappeared and companies moved to customer service theater. Now even the pretense of being of benefit to communities and customers is being dropped and companies are regularly openly hostile outside their PR departments. And they wonder why people hate them.
Imagine the paperwork though (processing, tracking, etc.) that they would have to go through if everyone did send in a letter, option out.
I mean, we can stay cynical, stay beaten down, or we can push back. If enough people push back, you’ll definitely see change.
The problem is there’s always someone convincing people not to push back online, for some strange reason.
Lol! So you’re going to punish Roku about their consumer hostile stance with some extra paperwork? That’s the ticket!
Very, very few people will even take 10 minutes to open an online AG complaint about a company that is directly harming them by openly breaking the law. You think a comment on Lemmy (or anywhere) is going to make a damn bit of difference to a legal corporate practice that started long before social media existed?
I know a guy who has deal on a really great bridge…
You think a comment on Lemmy (or anywhere) is going to make a damn bit of difference
Funny you should accuse me of that. You might want to take a look at this post I just made on the same day I replied to you…
https://lemmy.world/comment/8140817
The only point I’m trying to make is don’t be cynical and just sit on your ass, and do nothing about it. Even if the only things you can do are small things, they’re still things that you’re doing.
At the very least you can look at yourself in the mirror, and if you’re lucky, you may help affect real change.
Sending opt-out letters to Roku, no matter how many the receive won’t make the slightest bit of difference and you know it. The points I made in my post are perfectly valid, both in respect to Roku and corporations in general. Affecting real change has nothing to do with Roku or a thousand opt-out letters.
Real, lasting change at this point can only be accomplished politically. Corporations will only change because they’re forced to and that doesn’t have a damn thing to do with my comment, or with yours.
So get off your high-horse, quit with the straw-man arguments and look at your own fucking self in the mirror.
So get off your high-horse, quit with the straw-man arguments and look at your own fucking self in the mirror.
NO U!
LOL! Did you learn that in nursery school?
I have a dumb 4k tv. It’s cheap, it won’t meet everyone’s needs, but I really really really don’t want a smart tv.
It’s a Sceptre. Cheap enough that if it breaks it won’t break your heart to replace it.
Funny, I got a large Toshiba with fire TV because it was the cheapest option when I was looking, loaded with surveillance capitalism from Amazon.
Regretted it immediately, I would pay double for a dumb tv next time.
My tv is wonky as hell sometimes. I have to spray the volume button with contact cleaner from time to time or it turns itself up or down.
It’s fine other than that though haha.
Sceptre seems to be a popular brand mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the input!
I suppose you’re in the US so I don’t know if my answer fits but if the terms are against the law they are simply void: as in if you have a reason for a class action, no terms or contract can take it away from you
Most likely the terms say that you agree to go through individual binding arbitration rather than a lawsuit which the courts have found to be legal and enforceable. It’s really shitty and has become corporations favorite weapon to use against people, particularly because the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged. Contractually mandated arbitration really needs to be invalidated. Arbitration is a fine alternative if both parties want to go that route but it should never be forced on someone, particularly because of some bullshit EULA.
afaik even those terms would be unenforcable if you can only see the TOS after buying the product, which would be the case here.
I don’t think so. I think in that case you would have to decline the terms and not use the thing. You would be entitled to compensation for the cost of whatever it was, like you can return it to the manufacturer or vendor somehow.
No OP is mostly correct, you cannot enforce the terms of a contract that a side of the party cannot see until after the transaction was completed making arbitration clauses hidden inside products invalid. (Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC)
However you are also somewhat correct as you are under no obligation to agree to the updated terms and conditions and will be govern by the originally concented contract until you do (Douglas v. Talk America). The company is allowed to stop providing their services to you however you might be entitled to your original purchase price depending on what the original terms and conditions said.
OK how do I go about getting Roku to refund me for my TVs? That sounds like an excellent approach to take.
Contact their support and escalate up the food chain until you get to someone who is in the legal department. If that fails get a lawyer and sue.
I’m really glad to live in the EU
In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.
the arbitration companies are usually
fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challengedbeing paid directly by the company they’re arbitrating for, and therefore have a direct financial incentive to rule in favor of the corporation.FTFY. It’s way worse than just “being friendly” with corps. They’re on the corps’ payroll (indirectly, because the corp is paying for the arbitration,) and they know that if they continue to rule in the corps’ favor then the corp will continue calling them for future arbitration. There’s a tacit understanding between the arbiter and corporation, where if the arbiter favors the plaintiff then the arbiter won’t get called when the corporation goes to arbitration the next time.
This is an adhesion contract (no counteroffer or ability to negotiate terms, and it was made unilaterally) and probably will not stand up to a challenge in court. Of course, someone would actually have to sue / afford to sue. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)
Right it’s unenforceable however it’s plenty enforceable to poor people who can’t afford the legal fees.
Also, if outside of America, you probably would have a strong case for getting a full refund on the product if they did this.
It’s not (to my knowledge) a type of case that’s been specifically tested in court, but I think you could make a strong case that under Australian law, being required to agree to a new TOS that wasn’t there when you first purchased the device and which you don’t agree with would qualify as a “major problem”. The description of a major problem includes:
- is very different from the description or sample
- can’t be used for its normal purpose, or another purpose the consumer told the seller about before they bought it, and can’t easily be fixed within a reasonable time.
And when there’s a major fault, you as the customer are entitled to a full refund or replacement “of the same type of product”.
Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.
Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.
Couldn’t you just buy a new tv of a different brand from the same shop to offset the hit from the refund?
Yeah you could. Plus the store would probably try to reclaim the loss from the manufacturer.
when did you get this, have a roku tv box and haven’t got this yet
deleted by creator
Send this to leuis rossmann.
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.
Search for monitors, not televisions. For example, you can get an 48in and 55in OLEDs dumb monitors with multiple HDMI inputs.
And where do you plug in the aerial to watch TV? Or doesn’t it work like that where you’re from?
You’ll need to buy TV tuner with HDMI to do that.
But honestly, I probably wouldn’t go the monitor route unless you were all in on streaming.
Which most people are or should be tbh. Also, if anyone is searching for a dumb TV it’s more or less guaranteed they’re tech savvy enough to be running some sort of stream box/pc anyways for the TV.
Antenna TV is still kind of nice in that there is live coverage, it’s free, and it works when the internet is out. I get the appeal.
TV tuners are fairly cheap.
Never heard of them please elaborate a bit, I’m always open to learning new and better stuff.
HDHomeRun is one of the common brands. They have a couple that can even demodulate ATSC 3.0.
I dumped my satellite TV subscription service last year when I realised all we ever watched on it were on-demand services. I hooked one of the dish feeds into the TVs own socket since it was there, but beyond testing it worked it’s had no more than an hours use in the last six months.
We just watch stuff on the TVs streaming apps instead of the satellite decoders streaming apps (saving about 100kWh a year).
One of the few times we watched live TV, it was just on in the background and we realised the show that was on seemed interesting, we’d missed the first 10 minutes but there was an option to press a button and open the on-demand app and restart immediately from the beginning.
Hasn’t worked like that in the US for a couple decades. I remember early 2000’s there was a push to go digital and a lot of people with older TV’s that didn’t have coax or similar were given dongles by the government so they could make tv signals all digital. No more aerials on TVs.
No clue what you’re talking about. I’ve got an SMA connector on the back of my TV. The did government subsidized conversation boxes. It worked about the same as a VCR. Tune the TV to a specific channel and then use the convertor as the tuner. That by no means caused TVs no to longer than SMA connectors. That was due to TV manufacturers also having their fingers in streaming services. Gotta love that vertical integration!
My new (2023) Philips Roku TV has an antenna input and receives OTA digital channels just fine.
deleted by creator
Commercial display TVs are dumb. They are TVs meant for store displays and lack “smart” functionality.
deleted by creator
Just make sure they have audio out too (unless your source can drive a soundbar directly). I just got a new monitor that had built in speakers. They’re dog shit, and I didn’t plan on using them anyway, but I hadn’t appreciated how useful it was having a device that can decode the audio stream from HDMI or DP.
I still have my old usb soundbar for the times I want a loudspeaker, but I can just leave my headphones plugged into the monitors jack and switch the output device on the computer.
Did the old device agreement allow them to brick it until you agreed to the new agreement? If not, I say file that class action.
I just stick with computer monitors these days.
“Smart” TVs are f****** ridiculous now.
Problem with monitors is they’re not practical as a TV replacement for a livingroom environment. The 16/9 ones pretty much top out in the 40s inch wise unless you’re going for something outrageously expensive like the Samsung Arc. Then you’re investing a lot into features that don’t necessarily benefit the livingroom entertainment uses like GSync if all you’re using it for is watching movies and TV.
There’s a lot of smart TVs that work great as dumb displays (my LG never shows anything from it’s OS, just my inputs) as long as you don’t connect them to the internet
There’s plenty available in larger sizes if you look for ‘commercial display’ instead, e.g.
Also you need to move on from ‘as long as you don’t connect them to the internet’. It may have been true once, it isn’t true anymore- see comments here about Roku TV including from OP and discussion on a recent Hacker news thread
These are digital signage displays. They’re meant to sell the McRib at McDonald’s. If you care about any of the features that make modern TVs look great, black levels, contrast ratio, HDR these won’t cut it.
And yes the bottom of the barrel brands like Roku and Viso will give you the bottom of the barrel experience. This is not the same if you go with something like LG, Samsung or Sony
I didn’t know there were any smart TVs that weren’t pieces of s*** anymore, so that’s good to hear.
Personally, I’ve never had a problem finding a large monitor that fit my living room well.
I buy a separate Chromebook or similar $30 used laptop and run everything off of that through HDMI to the monitor.
Cheap and easy.
Ditto for my Samsung QLED. It’s fine as a dumb monitor. Don’t connect it to the internet, throw the remote in a drawer, and use CEC streaming boxes and game consoles to control it.
Why do you call it “your” physical device?
Lol, point well stated…
That is some grade A bullshit right there (not op, the Roku tv)
Ive got a TOS for them:
SECTION I
a. This contract expressly and to the fullest extent of the law binds that I did not read, nor am I bound to the terms and agreement laid out in any agreement that I agreed to. Any financial gains are automatically won by me in arbitration and any losses acrued are paid for by the Company to me with interest. Here is a vague copy/paste of about 9 more incoherent paragraphs full of “legal jargon” that never really state any clear purpose or definition of services rendered.
…
SECTION IX.
a. BY READING OR NOT READING THIS NOTICE COMPANY ASSUMES AND ACCEPTS ANY AND ALL FINANCIAL LIABILITY THEREIN. COMPANY AGREES TO PAY ME $75,000 FOR EDITING THIS CONTRACT (STANDARD GOING RATE PER DAY) PER DAY EFFECTIVE FOR 3 DAYS MAXIMUM TOTALING $225,000 PLUS TAXES AND INTEREST PAID.
b. COMPANY HAS UP TO 5 DAYS TO RESPOND TO AND DISPUTE THIS CONTRACT(They can’t. It is legally and eternally binding). THANKS FOR THE MONEY NERDS
Take a brick to Roku until it agrees to your terms.
Hisense did this to me and my TV, but in fact actually broke the TV’s wifi when it forced an update that I didn’t want and couldn’t decline. I argued with them and escalated it for 4 months and nothing came of it. I reported them to my state’s attorney general and the BBB. But this is definitely a class action lawsuit that will happen sooner or later.
Just in case anyone needs to hear this, bbb isn’t a government department. They are quite literally yelp before yelp and you can straight up pay to get bad reviews taken down from both. It would be better to put them on blast on social media since that sometimes gets the companies attention to try and fix PR.
It would be better to our them on blast on social media since that sometimes gets the companies attention to try and fix PR.
Works almost every time. I had a ticket with a vendor open at work for just about 3 months, and then only replies I’d gotten on the ticket was the “We’ve received your support request which we’ll promptly ignore!” autoresponse upon opening, and then another auto-response a month later saying the ticket was being assigned to another department. I’d replied to the ticket ~20 times asking for updates in that time.
I finally got sick of essentially yelling into an empty room and called out the company, their marketing team, their support team, and their CEO on Twitter, making sure to @ each one of them in the message. I got a reply from their CEO and an actual human responded to the ticket less than an hour later.
It’s shitty and a last resort, but it’s generally very effective.
Believe it or not I’ve had good luck a couple of times in the past when I was getting royally screwed over by what was supposed to be a legit company by looking up the email address to someone very high up in corporate, like the CFO or COO, and CC’ing them a reply in an already long and fucked up support email thread meandering down it’s path to nowhereville. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten some of the CS reps responsible in deep water, too.
I have a Hisense and had a similar experience. I was watching something fullscreen on an HDMI input, and then it suddenly switched inputs and showed a fullscreen firmware update prompt. I had no choice available other than to agree to update the firmware, no cancel button, couldn’t change inputs, nothing, the only choice was to update the firmware. So I unplugged the TV.
About 10 seconds after I powered it back on, the exact same update prompt happened, still with no choice to decline it. I pulled power and booted it back up one more time just to be sure, met with the update prompt again.
This made me very angry.
The next time I powered it on, I had a packet capture running to see where it was phoning home. I created a firewall rule blocking all the hostnames it tried to connect to at startup, pulled the plug, and then booted it back up. No more update prompt, and it hasn’t happened again. Good thing they don’t download and pre-stage the new firmware, I guess.
Let me know if you want the hostnames and I’ll PM them to you.
At this point I just refuse to ever connect smart TVs to wifi, it’s not worth it
