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.
What about the one sided ability to change a contract??
A year from now Roku pop up says “Click to Accept” , the text says **"this contract means you’ll have to give us your first born child? ** My reasoning says if they can do one then they can do the other. There is nothing that would prevent them from adding ‘fees’, or ‘subscriptions’ or simply turning off the device. (!)
This is egregious. We bought something. In normal commerce, the contract was set in stone at that moment. The seller can’t roll up 2 years later, change the contract, force you to agree before you can use your device, and then say , well maybe if you beg, you can opt out.
At this point if you still have your television hooked up to the internet you deserve whatever these companies do to you. The TV would work just fine if you’d never told it about your wifi.
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.
I legit don’t know how binding arbitration can be legal.
Agreeing to terms of actual usage of the product, I understand. Like for a pogo stick, assuming your own risk of injury.
But I don’t know how they can legally just say that suing is impossible.
Pray they don’t alter it further
If you own one of those and you’re a US resident, contact your state attorney general.
Ken paxton? Lulz, he’d probably come after me for saying anything.
Before I even finished reading that comment I thought, “Fuck. Ken Paxton would probably just take it as inspiration to accept money from Roku.”
Congrats to those in other states though. I am envious.
Good advice, depending on state. I think there is something in MD law that says you can’t sign away your legal rights.
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
Technically according to USA law you don’t own anything, ever. You own the medium, like plastic on CD, but not the data on it. You don’t own the music you own the right to reproduce recording for your own personal and enjoyment. By subscribing they are not selling you the access to service, they are giving your the right to use it for set period of time.
If you don’t have admin, and arguably source code, you don’t own it.
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.
The real question is what is Roku doing that might necessitate a jury trial in the first place.
The answer is spying and selling all your data to advertisers. Using ACR they can tell everything passing through that box and display adverts accordingly. Just what you want when watching a DVD.
TV is a TV. Nothing changed at all.
Every company has started doing that. Almost every EULA now has clauses forcing you to give up your right to class action lawsuits and jury trials and to use corporate-friendly mediation instead.
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.
They are even more so on the US, maybe you were thinking of the European Union? Cause in the US you have no rights if the EULA says so.
Its more complicated than that, EULA’s can’t require an illegal act, i.e.: If you don’t kill your cat you can’t use our service.
So they’re not perfectly binding if they don’t follow state and local law.
While true, it would be up to you to prove their EULA is requiring an illegal act and then win that court case. Only then you could go after them for killing your cat. By the time you are done with legalese you are already broke and your cat is dead.
In USA, they can supersede laws in some cases. Technically they can’t but you’d have to prove they do before you can sue the company. If you agreed in EULA that Roku can kill your dog if you stop paying for their service, they are within their right to do so. You’d have to go to court to free yourself from the EULA obligation first before Roku can get any punishment for killing an animal. Incredibly stupid.
Yeah right lmao
So, all these companies are wasting money getting their lawyers to write up (and maintain) these documents that we all have to agree to, but they’re totally unenforceable because… they’re too wordy?
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell.
They are unenforceable for more reasons than that. They also can not prove that you agreed to it, only that someone did.
Also, they can’t change the terms of your previous purchase after the fact. They can make you agree to something new going forward, but if they make your current device a brick because you don’t agree (which they are doing here), then they need to reimburse you for causing the loss of use of your device that you already purchased and was working under the previous terms.
The companies have the burden to provide them to the user. If they forget something, somebody loopholes them in court, they will lose.
The EULA is more of a rolling document, and something like a “We are legally obligated to provide this, so we better cover our asses in the process.” legal doc.
Surely corporations aren’t being intimidating to take the uneducated for a ride when they dispute it. Surely.
Yup.
Because here’s the thing, lawyers are super expensive and these corporations have in house lawyers for handling anyone that wants to sue. They’ll happily argue the validity of the EULA because they know just getting through the pretrial phase will cost you tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Corporations have weaponized this fact at every chance they get.
It’s the exact same reason why companies in California and other states make employees sign noncompetes, even though they are explicitly unenforceable. It’s so the company can financially punish you even if you are in the right.
This is what I like to call “bullying”. I don’t think anyone should be able to hire private lawyers. All lawyers, no matter how rich you are or if you’re a corporation, should be public and randomly assigned dictated by a random number generator and a publicly viewable algorithm IMO.
The US has the right to a fair and speedy trial in its constitution. Current litigation is niether.
The only argument i have gotten against this is “But what if I get a shitty lawyer? I should be able to pay what I want for the quality of lawyer I desire.”
It doesn’t seem like a strong argument to me but to those who use it as a reply it seems rock solid?
Can’t you request a new lawyer if you feel yours isn’t representing you well? Or appeal based on that?
The other route that could work is public civil defenders. It requires the government to properly fund and staff, but having a legal firm sponsored by the state willing and ready to take up cases would mean that the private entities can still get their lawyers but they can’t steam roll over someone that doesn’t make $500k a year.
Of course, there could be corruption issues. I wouldn’t want the lawyer on my case being drinking buds with the lawyer on the opposing side.
This is a good compromise but frankly I think all lawyers should be government employees assigned by the court with 3rd party independent oversight.
Its not perfect but it is better than ‘if you are rich you will likely win or just drive your opposition into poverty’.
t’s so the company can financially punish you even if you are in the right.
This doesn’t make sense to me. If it’s unenforceable, what happens if you just ignore any demands from the suing company?
You get sanctioned and maybe even thrown in jail.
You HAVE to participate and pray that the judge in the case is willing to listen to you arguments for dismissal. If you don’t do that much a judge is free to issue punishments for not participating. Sanctioning can be as bad as fines but could further be things like “Ok, you’ve failed to participate so we are going to assume you are guilty” (Which, btw, is what happened to Alex Jones. He did not participate in discovery in any of his cases and so got a default judgements in multiple cases).
If the judge decides that there is any sort of merit (and the standard for that is really low. Cases almost never get dismissed) you enter the most expensive part of trial, pretrial and discovery. This is where both sides get to see each others documents on the case and lawyers spend countless hours filing pretrial motions with the court. This is something that can literally last years and even decades, especially in civil matters which take a back seat on the docket to criminal cases. Generally speaking, this is why people and companies tend to settle. It’s a cost saving measure because making you way all the way to trial can easily dwarf the cost of settlement.
This also, btw, is why patent trolls are so effective. They’ll often ask for an amount low enough that most companies will just pay the fees yet high enough to keep them in business. Even if the patents themselves are potentially invalid.
Yes, it doesn’t make sense. In fact, a big issue is that we don’t have any sort of public civil defenders (we absolutely should). So for most individuals lawyers are prohibitively expensive. You basically have to either be rich, be lucky enough to have a case that aligns with a charitable legal organization’s goals, or luck out on a legal firm deciding to take your case pro bono for their own reasons.
So let me get this straight, some rich fuck could sue me because he doesn’t like my haircut and if I don’t pony up cash to get a lawyer the judge will just assume the rich fuck is right?
Burn every inch of this corrupt as fuck system down.
You don’t have to get a lawyer, but you do have to respond to the lawsuit. That is, participation is not optional.
Now, there is protection from the “bad haircut” lawsuits. It’s called “Vexatious litigation”. If someone sues you for a bad haircut, and they’ve sued others for it as well, you can ultimately seek sanctions (including covering your legal fees) against them and their lawyers. That’s why you don’t generally see bad haircut lawsuits.
Further, if the lawsuit is so bad that it’s “bad haircut” level, it’s possible to get sanctions against the lawyer that filed it for wasting the courts time.
But again, participation isn’t optional here. You HAVE to respond to a lawsuit, you can’t just shut your eyes and hope it goes away.
Still seems like a massive waste of time and money that anyone with means can just apply to anyone they feel like.
I mean IANAL but in a rational world there would be a minimum of grievance requirement before being able to file such a lawsuit.
We need tort reform but the average person just doesn’t seem to care until it affects them personally, and doesn’t have the context to understand it.
If a company takes you to court, you can’t just decide to ignore them. Either you/your representative turns up on the designated court dates and presents a case, or you’ll most likely lose by default.
If it was possible to make a court case go away just by ignoring it then everyone would just do that.
If an EULA is not a binding contract, what standing do they have to bring forth a case?
An EULA is nominally a binding contract, in the sense that it is presented as such. No court has ever ruled and given precedent to the effect that EULAs are universally non-binding (because companies have always settled out of court for cases where it looks like they’re going to lose).
It is well understood that the arguments against EULAs being binding are solid ones, and that the reason why so many cases settle is because companies are not confident of winning cases on the strength of EULA terms, but you still need to go through the rigmarole of attending court and presenting your defence case. That’s how court cases work.
Edit: And perhaps more to the point of the OP, if you want to sue a company over some defect or service failure, it’ll be them who introduce the EULA as a defence, and it’ll be for you/your lawyers to argue against it. Which adds complexity and time to what might otherwise have been a straightforward claim, even if you win.
Welcome to the US system of justice it’s shitty all over and built for the rich to tap dance around.
That’s why I advocate heavily for the environmental and economic benefits of consuming the wealthy.
Makes me wonder what eating a cow that has eaten delicacies its whole life would taste like
Chewy and bitter especially close to the skin, and gamey depending on diet. The more meat, the more gamey. I wonder what vegetarians taste like.
Dude this is totally how it works.
You have general counsel, firms on retainer, etc and the cost is amortized over all legal needs… And 99.999% of users will never even THINK about legal action nevermind actually pursue it.
It’s the same reason they send C&D letters…an ounce of legal effort (which you likely already have to buy anyway as a corporation) is worth a TON of consumer litigation protection.
You have general counsel, firms on retainer, etc and the cost is amortized over all legal needs… And 99.999% of users will never even THINK about legal action nevermind actually pursue it.
The exception to that is class action suits, where 100% of users could be included in the class even if they have no idea it’s going on. Especially when the company does too little harm to any one person for it to be worthwhile to sue individually but a fuck-ton of harm in aggregate, this is the only way to hold them accountable.
And that’s what these forced arbitration agreements are designed to neuter.
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.
Analysis of how EULAs are reviewed by courts depends primarily on whether the particular EULA is determined to be a contract for the sale of goods, and thus governed by the terms of the UCC, or whether it is a contract for services, and, accordingly, governed by the common law.’ Although it may be of little practical import (because even those contracts governed by the UCC can be modified to waive a consumer’s traditional Article 2 inspection and rejection rights), it is important to understand the framework by which software-and by extension videogames - are analyzed by courts in the United States.
From the document Rated “M” for misleading.
Time for a class action suite.
I hope the suite (sounds like sweet) has snacks because I’m hungry. We’ll be waiting there while the law(suit) is pending.
Noooooooo, you just signed that right away! /s
“My cat stepped on the controller, your honor. I never actually saw or agreed to those terms.”
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
My muscle memory is to hit power-right-ok to open youtube when I turn the tv on, most of the time without looking at it. The other day, it ended up still sitting on the default menu item after I did that. This must have popped up then. Something that can be dismissed without ever actually seeing it is certainly not enforceable.
This sort of thing isn’t new but I’ve seen this particular one all over the place. Was there something different from this experience compared to the times that people have agreed in the past?
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.
Any lawyers out there who can speak towards the three bolded parts?
