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…
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
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.
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.
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.
afaik even those terms would be unenforcable if you can only see the TOS after buying the product, which would be the case here.
In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.
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.
I’m really glad to live in the EU
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.
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:
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.
Couldn’t you just buy a new tv of a different brand from the same shop to offset the hit from the refund?