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.
Time for a class action suite.
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 hope the suite (sounds like sweet) has snacks because I’m hungry. We’ll be waiting there while the law(suit) is pending.
Smart TVs were supposed to be better than dumb TVs.
Now it’s the complete opposite.
Worst part is, now you can’t find a dumb TV anymore. The closest thing out there are “commercial signage displays” which are just dumb TVs with limited inputs and usually without remotes, but 25-50% more expensive because “commercial” (and because they won’t be able to continue making money by showing you ads and selling your data) and a lot of retailers won’t let you order one without a business account, or force you to order in bulk.
And every Neanderthal I complain to is like “but smart TVs have so many more features,” like, bro, I can make any TV the smartest fucking TV in the world by plugging it into the desktop PC I’m gonna keep right next to it anyway. All the “smart” bullshit just gets in the way. I’ve yet to encounter a smart TV UI that didn’t require a dozen button presses to change inputs and spend two seconds or more re-drawing the UI with EVERY INPUT because they put the cheapest processors they can find in these pieces of shit.
Commercial displays cost more because backlight testing and ratings double or triple. You’re paying more for longer uptime since your display is likely to run 12+ hours a day straight and not for 1-2 hours a day with an occasional 8+ hour usage. You’re also paying actual cost, but a lot of it really has to do with testing and materials that are built to survive consistent and frequent usage, plus centralized management. Lots of people assume it’s the same shit, but it’s completely different and it shows when you buy a consumer off the shelf display and put it in production.
Computer monitors are dumb tv
Good luck finding a 65 inch computer monitor
I mean, thanks for the link but, if you actually try to find it on Amazon for example it doesn’t exist. So that’s not terribly helpful.
It’s also three times the price of a 65 inch 4k TV.
No, the 65 inch 4K TV is three times cheaper because of the smart features. They sell the data they collect from you, and the ads.
The thing is 5 years old so that’s hardly surprising. I just googled 65 inch monitor and this was the first hit.
Just checked Geizhals and apparently there’s none currently, the largest is the HP Omen X, 64.5". Close enough though I’d say. There’s 55 monitors 46" and higher but only 7 52" and higher.
At that size I’m obliged to ask if you don’t want a projector instead.
oh no its not on amazon it must not be real
Projectors are so easy. Currently watching Hulu on an 85" screen.
as a projector owner myself, i would not say “so easy”. they are a lot more work to set up, are more unsightly in living spaces, require light control, require more maintenance and cleaning, and even after all that the picture quality is still never going to approach a decent HDR panel. It’s only really worth it if you need/want a 100”+ picture, otherwise you’d be better off with an 85” TV.
Not to mention many of the high end projectors now have the same smart tv features built in
microcenter has some absurdly expensive monitors.
Yes. I want one. Not sure why. But I do.
Show me a 50 inch computer monitor with speakers and multiple hdmi inputs, and I’ll agree with you.
Here you are. Included everything 46"+ because 49" are common and the next category is 52" up where things get rare. Both of these are gigantic and have 4 HDMI ports. Neither have displayport which disqualifies them in my eyes because this kind of shit.
Why would you want speakers though. I mean computer monitors usually come with them but the less said about them the better.
Congratulations on finding a €1500 dumb TV.
Skipping the first couple because they’re ultrawide (probably not the best for TV usage) the cheapest one is the GIGABYTE AORUS FO48U. 2xHDMI, 1x DisplayPort, 1xUSB-C, about a thousand euroons. Expensive? Well, it’s OLED. So is the equally-priced LG UltraGear OLED 48GQ900-B, Three HDMI plus DisplayPort.
Also they’re not dumb TVs they don’t come with tuners, a PCIe version will run you about a hundred bucks, plus the rest of your media server. Or something like 20 bucks (seriously) for a receiver, more like 60 if you want a triple-tuner (DVB-C/T2/S2) that runs Linux (double-check that the bootloader is unlocked, though, can’t be arsed to). And yes of course they’re more expensive they’re not cross-financed by showing you ads. Do you want a TV or a billboard?
Exactly this!
I’ve heard that if you want a dumb TV, you buy a smart TV with input priority on the hdmi and never connect to the internet.
How accurate is that?
I wouldn’t know, as I’ve been blessed with a couple of dumb tvs from the golden age of dumb tvs for the last 10 years.
Some smart TVs need to be connected before they’ll even start.
The key thing is to make sure you look into that stuff before you buy.
My TV is from the before days, and when it dies I’m not sure what the plan will be. Possibly a large monitor at 3x the price.
The key thing is to make sure you look into that stuff before you buy.
Or better yet, buy it and then return it as defective, ideally repeatedly and gathering a whole bunch of other people to do the same en masse, until companies start losing so much money on this shit that they’re forced to be less shitty.
If only they weren’t so heavy…
Found the youngster or missed a sarcasm tag. I remember a time when my 50 inch was considered leading class for weighing “only” 60 lbs, my tvs before that one all weighed over 100 lbs (CRTs). I literally unironically can throw most tvs upto 65 inches just over my shoulder, and if the boxes weren’t so awkwardly big I could carry a few at a time. TVs may be a lot things but not heavy, most 43 inch tvs are under 20 lbs now.
My hisense google tv connected to an open wifi network and updated without being told to. The update broke CEC and hdmi arc. I cannot adequately express my rage at this moment.
I have no experience with them, but FYI a bunch of people were recommending sceptre for dumb TVs in other threads.
Sceptre makes dumb TVs.
They are pretty decent too, for the price
What I don’t get about smart TVs is why you can’t use it with your phone. That’s one of Kodi’s best features. You can just type using your phone keyboard. Typing with a TV remote is a fucking NIGHTMARE.
Can’t you plug in your computer into an HDMI port and simply not use the “smart” features?
In most cases, no. You have to use the built in “smart” software to change inputs.
That sucks. I guess I gotta keep my TV running as long a possible then. It’s a smart TV, but I can change ports without the smart features. In fact the smart TV part of it is basically like another port, but I have set to use HDM1 as the default when starting up and I never have to look at the smart interface. TV is over 5 years old now, the smart interface probably runs like shit by now.
Yes, you absolutely can. Or you can use pihole to block ads/updates. Or you can use a raspberry pi with kodi. Or a streaming stick. Or you can use it normally.
Just make sure you buy from a store with a return policy that let’s you test the TV for your use case. Which in the EU is any online retailer, for 14 days.
There are tvs that wait a month before giving you a big manually dismissed popup about not being connected to the internet.
You can (or at least could) put Bravia TVs into “pro mode” and turn off all the shit.
They’re also brighter and don’t burn in as easily
Any tv without internet access is a DumbTV™️, no?
So anybody who doesn’t have A FUCKING DESKTOP PC near their TV is a Neanderthal?
I have a smart TV from 2019 and it runs perfectly fine, it’s snappy and convenient. Switching inputs requires 2 button presses (3 if you don’t want to wait 3 seconds to auto-switch to the selected one) or I can automate it with home assistant for a “movie watching” scene for instance, for 0 button presses.
Plus you seem to completely misunderstand what digital signage TV are.
I have always opposed smart TVs. Most of my reasoning is because the UI is almost always dogshit slow because the hardware and software is thrown in as an afterthought. But I’ll add this to my reasoning for not getting a smart TV.
A signage TV with a streaming stick/box is perfectly fine for what I need. Jellyfin does not care what I’m playing.
Edit: Also, I did not even notice that there was no option to reject this. It is just a close button. There is no way this shit is enforceable.
I haven’t looked into it, but there’s got to be some open source firmware for a lot of these TVs, right? To improve the UI and remove all spyware and bloatware?
Smart TV was always a dumb idea. Better to control your own equipment.
The worst part is that all these Smart TVs run Linux, whose GPL license was explicitly designed to prevent this sort of user-hostile bullshit. Unfortunately, because the Linux contributors decided to stick with version 2 of the license instead of converting to version 3, it’s stuck with a loophole that allows companies to get away with this abuse.
It’s a goddamned travesty.
The GPL ensures user software freedom for us to remove this crap by requiring them to share their source code. Using Linux doesn’t mean they have to follow the GPL unless they make modifications to it.
You need every software contributors to agree to a license change unless the license gives an upgrade option. Most contributors had no choice but to use GPLv2 as it wasn’t “GPLv2-or-later” to start with, maybe it was posdible at one point but they didn’t want to anyway.
The GPL ensures user software freedom for us to remove this crap by requiring them to share their source code. Using Linux doesn’t mean they have to follow the GPL unless they make modifications to it.
That’s not quite the issue.
First of all, the GPL requires you to make the source available if you distribute the software, whether you modify it or not. And in fact TV manufacturers do provide source code, if you dig through their websites to find the disused basement lavatory with the sign saying “beware of the leopard.”
Second, the issue is that the source code isn’t actually going to work if you try to compile it and install it on the device, because they have DRM to prevent anything other than what the manufacturer has cryptographically signed from being allowed to run. See also: Tivoization.
That’s correct. My response was intended to point out proprietary software can run on Linux and GPL doesn’t apply.
I have read arguments in favor of GPL v2 over v3 and found them unconvincing.
Linux will never go to GPLv3 because Linus is pussywhipped by the Foundation and it’s sponsors
They are. But not for customers.
There is nothing so pure and good that rampant greed can’t ruin it.
I wish there were dumb options but since they’re all subsidised with loads of ads, they’re either unaffordable or plain unavailable. They just don’t make them for the consumer market anymore, there’s no demand for it. So they took advantage of that and market the dumb TVs as business TVs at huge markups, like 5+ grands for basic 4K no HDR no VRR no nothing, and they won’t even sell it to you without a registered business account.
Those displays are not televisions - they are for menus at restaurants. They cost a fortune because they are low volume, high reliability devices that come with service contracts and repairable components.
I don’t connect my TV to the internet. Problem solved.
I used to develop smart TV apps.
I still only own dumb TVs. I do not need that bloat.
Always was. Just took a little time for the reasons to be apparent to more people.
Technology in general is supposed to make our lives easier. It seems many things these days do the opposite.
They are better, but you foolishly assumed that they meant better for the consumer, not better for the seller.
I think you’re qualified for a full refund in most regions if you disagree with the new terms.
Send them a letter via registered mail stating that upon receipt of said letter they waive their right to waive your rights.
That sounds like some sovereign citizen thing
Similar things have worked in countries that aren’t so under the thrall of the mighty corporation. I recall some guy in … Russia? who struck out and reworded a bunch of penalty clauses for a credit card offer he got and mailed it back to the bank, which accepted it and issued the card. Cue much hilarity as he racked up a bunch of charges and then got it thrown out in court. (Actually, here’s a link.. They eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.)
Anyway, I live in Australia so my response to all these kinds of attempts at removal of my consumer rights is a drawn out “yeah, nahhhh”
deleted by creator
Uno reverse card
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. DO NOT FEAR. SIGN AWAY FUTURE LEGAL PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO FEAR.
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.
I do not think that this can be legal, if you have already agreed to terms.
Surely they can just say from now on, thing you have used for a year is not usable unless you promise not to sue us.
Surely that ship has sailed?
Pray they don’t alter them any further… or we’ll all end up riding a unicycle in a pink dress.
That sounds like fun though!
gender bending is played out; drab gray jumpsuits for everyone and no talking
the unicycles can stay as an approved method of personal transport
Where I live, the way contract law (at least in regards to employment) works is generally you can’t alter terms (by imposing additional restrictions) after both parties have agreed to it unless there is some form of compensation provided for the restricted party in exchange for agreeing to those additional restrictions.
EULAs are a magical playground in USA. If you agreed in initial terms that they can change this document in future with or without notifying you, then they are within their rights to change it.
Urgh.
“My child, a minor, clicked agree when trying to use the TV I paid for. I have never seen this EULA.”
Did you read it? That first paragraph’s last sentence refers you to the section which tells you how to opt out.
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.
It would be hilarious if a lot of people did this. And requested confirmation of receipt, and kept stalking them for these confirmations.
Maybe the letter should be on a0, and a separate one for each member of the household.
I’ve requested confirmation and have only gotten it once or twice.
What I’ve started doing is actually just sending them their same exact terms via their corporate registered address (regardless of their instructions) with the arbitration clause and jury trial waiver and just about anything I don’t agree to removed. I tell them so long as they continue to provide the services to me, that they implicitly agree to the terms I’m sending them, with any further updates requiring them to send a registered (not certified) letter.
I intentionally do not provide any way for them to identify my account except for the return address.
I figured if I ever had to go to court, one of these things would happen:
- judge finds that the original terms are enforceable, which means I’m no worse off
- judge finds that my amended terms are enforceable, which means it worked
- judge finds both terms unenforceable and I can continue to sue them
So far, no company has ever written me back or turned off my access to the site.
I suggest everyone do this because these forced arbitration clauses are very anti-consumer and we need to start clawing back our rights.
🫡🫡🫡
Godspeed soldier
I’m definitely doing it. Worth the cost of a stamp.
I don’t even have a Roku TV just an Ultra hooked up to a monitor so not a lot to lose but it’s the principal of the thing.
Any reasonable judge will look at this clause and come to the conclusion that Roku is not acting in good faith. It’s so blatantly scummy to have a user have to mail in an opt out request on a consumable’s EULA update that the consumer never asked for long after the initial purchase.
It’s enraging because information like the account email and TV model are sitting there available to the Roku OS. These could easily be appended to an email at the touch of a button, or transmitted to Roku Legal in an even more efficient programmatic way.
But noooooo, they need to force you to write the shit down with a pen because they know you won’t bother. Next time they want to sell you something, though? That’ll be one click.
I’d love to see a judge throw the book at some company for this kind of horseshit. Last time I refinanced my house I saw the page about opting out of marketing somewhere in the cloud of papers I signed, and meant to go back to it. I did, but it had such a complex table of options that I said to myself “I need to look at this with my glasses.” And then of course I forgot to do that and of course they sold my information everywhere. This is my own credit union that I’ve been with for 12 years, too.
That’s an overly complicated procedure to opt out.
You gotta opt in, then send a fucking letter with a bazillion nitty gritty information.
First of all, shit like this should be made an example of, and it should as easy to opt out than to opt in. Otherwise, it is predatory
What an absurd burden to put on someone. If I can opt in electronically, I should be able to opt out electronically.
Which is the law in countries with consumer protections.
Surprised they don’t want it hand-delivered at the top of a mountain somewhere.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
In my pro consumer country there is an amazing law that states that any contract cancellation procedure cannot be more difficult than the contract sign-up procedure. This means it can’t be through different channels or have more steps.
I know what I’m doing tonight. Once I have the letter with all the details in alignment I’ll post an update here to help others.
Got that letter?
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 just got that on my Roku device and clicked through it without even realizing because it was the exact type of pop-up and position and timing as when it informs me that the micro SD card has successfully mounted, and it took my brain a second to register that 1) the pop-up was much larger, and 2) I briefly saw a word that looked like “arbitration”
How can this be a legally enforceable contract?! Especially considering if I didn’t agree, my device that I’ve already paid for and have been using would cease functioning and they sure as hell aren’t going to refund my purchase from years ago if I refuse
How can this be a legally enforceable contract?!
I’d like to think it can’t be but it’s the US so who knows.
Changing the terms after buying the device and in a way that your kid could accept them by hitting ok on the remote is bonkers.
Yeah, that’s some dystopian neo-feudalist horseshit I’d only expect to fly in a bunch of the world’s most corrupt shit holes, including the USA.
They have more money to spend on lawyers is how.
I hate that this is so true
They can’t prove you read it, maybe your child pressed accept. This is not legally binding in Europe
This is called a Deceptive Pattern (or dark pattern). This feature worked exactly as intended in your case.
It doesn’t matter if it is legal or enforceable. Who’s going to stop them?
In USA, EULA are god. You have no rights other than right to give them money.
You could conceivably have a basis for a lawsuit against them if you do not agree to the binding arbitration for their disabling of the hardware that you had purchased from them.
However, do not forget that binding arbitration is still a legal process and does require them to treat it with the same gravity as a court trial would otherwise require, so even if you have agreed to The binding arbitration limitation, should something go awry you still have grounds and a space to take them to court, and in many cases, binding arbitration is much faster and more convenient for all parties than using the court system.
I got this yesterday, as well. There’s no way this could hold up legally, right? Like my 7 year old could easily just click through that, no way this is a legally binding contract to forfeit jury rights and right to sue.
…right?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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’.
Can’t you request a new lawyer if you feel yours isn’t representing you well? Or appeal based on that?
I never said they were MY arguments
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?
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.
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.
Fuck every paragraph of our legal code then, this isn’t justice, this is just another layer of protection for the owner class.
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.
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.
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.
Surely corporations aren’t being intimidating to take the uneducated for a ride when they dispute it. Surely.
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.
The fact that this is actually legal makes me glad to live in the EU. Damn, this shit is bleak.
It probably isn’t legal most places. EULAs are already considered fairly flimsy in terms of enforcement, but changing an EULA after you’ve already bought a device, in such a way as to reduce your statutory rights, is almost certainly a complete non-starter.
Watched the other day video about always online games being terminated and Ross, guy behind “Freeman’s mind” is starting world wide legal action against Ubisoft and some others. He talked specifically about EULAs in US and they are like promises from god. If you accept them suing the company for anything covered there becomes a nightmare. Here’s a link. It’s a bit longer watch, but worth it. But in short, in USA what can be written in EULA is almost unlimited. Example he gave was that you can accept for game developer to have the right to kill your dog if you buy their game and they would have a complete right to do so, you wouldn’t be able to call the cops on them for animal abuse until you disproved and had EULA brought down on court first.
Document he’s linking to which describes this whole mess in regards to games and pre-orders and similar. But also touches on EULAs.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
Is it really legal, though?
IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt, but from my understanding, Its legal, though it may be unenforceable. If I want to sue them, they will say I agreed to arbitration in the contract, I will ignore that and continue to file. They will counter-file that I agreed to arbitration by accepting the EULA and that the case should be dropped, I will counter-file that I only agreed to it under duress because it was either agree or throw away my TV and that the arbitration clause is invalid because of X, Y or Z. At this point either the Judge will decide to listen to arguments from both sides then make a decision or will decide based on the undisputed facts presented by both sides and will either invalidate the EULA and allow the lawsuit to continue, or will uphold the EULA and drop the case with prejudice, or will allow me to make another argument and drop the case without prejudice allowing me to re-file with a better case.
The issue is, is it worth it to spend that kind of time and money for it in the first place? If you don’t have an open and shut case and can’t file in a state where you can make Roku pay the legal fees, in general whatever you’re trying to accomplish will cost you more than just getting off their ecosystem, which is what they are counting on. Since you would have to sue them just to see if you can sue them, it just adds extra time, money, and effort into suing them that it is more likely to deter people from actually suing and instead choosing to arbitrate under their terms which, depending on the ethical considerations of the company, could be fair or it could be heavily skewed in their favor. At which point you can decide at that point if you should sue and then will also have any evidence acquired about an unfair arbitration in the filings as well.
Either way, the legality is perfectly legal to be in an EULA, its enforceability though is mostly only backed by how much time, money, and effort it would take to bypass it. Like if there is an open door with a sign saying “Please use next door” and the next door leads to the same place as the open door. Most of us will just use the next door because its not worth the effort to deal with whatever issue might occur if we used the open door. But if the “next” door is locked, we’d just go in the open door because its no longer worth the effort to deal with procedures the company wants.
Thanks. What a fucked up system, man.
What even the point of making laws and regulations if corporate can just force you to waive all your rights?
That’s one big difference between the US and the EU law. In the EU, they can’t.
Whats the point of laws when they just get in the way of corporate interests and exploitation.
deleted by creator
Will someone please think of the CEO’s bonus?? (…Nah, they can get bent.)
deleted by creator
A court wouldn’t uphold this
and by the time the court throws it out the TV I paid for has been disabled for months and I’m out a ton of money and time. A lot of people will just agree because defending your rights in this country is very expensive and cumbersome. They’re counting on this idea.
There’s a nonzero chance the SCOTUS would.
That’s why unalienable rights are so important.
thats what the law is becoming. a way to enforce the will of the corporate state.
Because the laws and regulations have been influenced by lobbying by large corporations to suit them best.
I still can’t comprehend why American just accepting that “lobbyists” are a normal thing.
Isn’t that literally bribery in broad daylight to influence laws making decisions? And the fact that a corporate can “sponsor” politicians. You’re supposed to making those laws to keep the corporate in line, not taking their handout.
Are there any other countries with the same “lobbying” practice?
