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.
The legal term is “consideration”. To form a contract you must have three elements: Offer, consideration, and acceptance.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure it would help here. They would argue their consideration is whatever online services are tied to the product, but even without that, the contract isn’t being formed at this point (unless someone is going through first setup, at which point they can still return it). The contract was already formed and this is an amendment to those terms that the original wording likely has weasel words to permit.
That’s not to say the consumer has no recourse, consumer rights are probably the best bet. If the previous terms don’t expressly grant them the right to take away access to all features in circumstances like this, it may be possible to find them in breach, but unfortunately EULAs are usually pretty toothless when it comes to penalising the vendor.
I would like to know how much of this has been tested in court, and how much has just been insinuated by the sheer volume of corporate lawyers insisting that they’re allowed to pull this crap. Because you can just write any old junk down, but lawyers don’t make the law.
Like, on the basic level of what a contract is, how can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms? How can an EULA be binding when the exchange has already happened and no agreement was made except the delivery of a product? How can consideration be forced on one party while their property is held ransom? And esepcially how can a fundamental legal right be waived in such a manner?
If this happened in any other sphere it would be understood as some kind of vandalism, theft extortion, or something. Like your builder just shows up one day, “Hey, I installed a new sink in your kitchen! You can’t use your house until you agree I’m not liable for anything that happens to your house from this point forward. No, you can’t read it, just sign it. This is a real contract because I gave you something of value.” I suspect this isn’t happening because it’s perfectly legal, but because the internet of things hasn’t matured enough to have strong legal precedents established and there hasn’t yet been a big public backlash against it.
I think the more they try to pull this garbage the more people will start to realise that this is bullshit and do something about it.
“How can one party reserve the right to unilaterally change the terms?”
When it comes to business to consumer contracts, often they can’t, due to “unfair terms” clauses in a lot of consumer protection laws.
In this specific case, the fact you can opt-out retrospectively (and inconveniently of course) is certainly due to those laws.
But like you say, it needs to be tested.