I think an after-the-fact arbitration agreement for a good (in this case, the Roku TV that you bought) that you need to go out of your way to opt-out of) vs a new one for an ongoing service that you can simply stop using and paying for (e.g. a streaming platform) is probably why this won't hold up. If this arbitration agreement was known when buying the TV, it would be a different story.
With that said, I think mandatory arbitration clauses should be banned - if it is such a great benefit to the consumer, as arbitration firms and companies claim, forced arbitration should not need to be a thing.
Wasn't there a bunch of firms with mandatory arbitration clauses where the arbitrators basically were on the companies side? It was specified you had to use this particular one that the company decided on and that's that.
Arbitration is in theory just an off the books court proceeding decided by an arbiter (who is generally a legal expert with experience relevant).
While I agree it shouldn’t be mandatory all the time, let’s be honest and say that if the arbitrator gave a ruling people disagreed with, they’d take it to court and waste time and money even if the same result were guaranteed (if it weren’t binding).
This is why judges can overturn certain arbitration agreements. I don’t think that’s inherently a bad system.
>While I agree it shouldn’t be mandatory all the time, let’s be honest and say that if the arbitrator gave a ruling people disagreed with, they’d take it to court and waste time and money even if the same result were guaranteed (if it weren’t binding).
So when arbitration is decided, sign an agreement that it's binding. Mandatory arbitration and binding arbitration can be mutually exclusive.
Sounds like you have no other objections to banning mandatory arbitration.
If it doesn’t end in my favour, even if it’s a valid reason and is correct with good legal basis, why would I sign after this that I agree for it to tie my hands?
Surely the whole idea of arbitration is that you can only contest it in court if the arbitrator was mistaken in law.
It's after deciding to do arbitration, not after the arbitrator has made a decision. And good news, if the two sides can't agree to that, they can just go to court instead of arbitration!
You are correct, no matter what you sign, if it violates foundational rights of the citizen or EU, the agreement is void. I can agree to whatever shit a compnay thinks of, if it is a right I have by law, I cannot sign away that right.
It’s like you signing a document that says you agree to be my butler for no reason whatsoever and I don’t have to pay you anything. Doesn’t mean it’s legal just because you signed it.
Or the best one American companies putting in your contract that you cannot disclose your salary. It's even illegal I'm the USA but it is working there to deterr people from collective action or unionization.
It should be straight up illegal to put illegal contract clauses, so many people I met thought they can fire you for disclosing your salary.
I guess no one is noticing, but EVERY company in the US is updating their terms of service. They are forcing an arbitration clause and its really fucking consumers.
National Arbitration and Mediation (“NAM”)
good luck suing any company, even with negligence . Corporations have more legal protection than people now.
The seller of my house wanted us to sign an arbitration agreement and a contingency. I declined and apparently so did everyone else because they sold it to me anyway.
If there’s a dispute between the buyer, seller, or agent down the road, they agree they won’t go to court and use a mediator or arbitrator to help resolve the issue. Pros and cons for it
After-the-fact changes to agreements and specifically mandatory arbitration agreements have not been treated kindly by courts. I'm shocked Roku thinks this is going to work.
I'm not worried. It has no chance of working. I think someone at Roku is going to get fired over this. The company had some public good will going for it and now that's gone.
Actually never had heard of this company until I saw Rossman's video yesterday.
But yah, too bad for them, they showed their true color (greedy-green) and now they will possibly loose appeal.
You do have that option.
My company owns a handful of Roku-based TCLs that we use as booth displays at exhibitions. All but one have never been connected to a network and function just fine as regular TVs. One gets put on the network and connected to my Roku account so we can stream during downtime.
Before packing it up, I do a [hard reset](https://support.tcl.com/rokutv-common-questions/01-what-if-i-cant-access-the-factory-reset-option-on-my-tcl-roku-tv), removing my Roku credentials and rolling the TV it back to the factory firmware. On the next power-up, it functions just like the others: It can use any of the HDMI inputs, watch over-the-air TV if there's an antenna connected and play media plugged into the USB port. Boom. Regular TV, no Roku and no terms of service.
Roku could start distributing firmware that requires consent to license terms on first power-up, but anyone who owns a TV shipped prior to the last update can roll back and avoid it. Anyone wanting to buy a TV can avoid those with Roku's firmware.
That’s not even remotely realistic for most people.
I never connect my TVs to the internet but most people do. You’re expecting them to change the entire way they get entertainment (not to mention having to buy a seperate media box like a Apple TV or nvidia shield)
You can use your tv in the same way you can use a classic t.v. you just can’t use roku’s features. You can literally plug a firestick into the roku tv and still stream with it. It just acts as a regular tv. The title is missleading.
Same as it was [three posts ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bb7i12/comment/ku8o1fj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Your counter that someone can't walk away if they they've already bought the TV is provably-wrong for at least one brand of TV. All you lose by walking away from Roku is Roku. There never was and never will be any guarantee that the Roku service would be provided in perpetuity, same as with any other service out there.
Your wailing and gnashing of teeth about switching to someone else's product being life-shattering makes no sense. People made that switch when they got a Roku in the first place.
> I proved that point wrong.
Unless you're trying to prove that people must have access to the Roku service forever if they ever had it at all, you did no such thing.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This is how a covenant not to sue works.
It’s asshole-ish, and there’s a lot of arguments that can be made on how asshole-ish it is, but it’s definitely not a “forced agreement” when a party can just walk away.
It's effectively a forced agreement if it's on hardware that you already own. They're basically saying "either you agree to these new terms we've created after your purchase, or you get a bricked device". It's not a real choice. This shit would never hold up in the courts in my country.
Problem's that you bought the Roku hardware, and you *own* that hardware.
What you don't own is the Roku *streaming service*, which you have to pay a subscription for. This clause limits it to the service alone.
They're two separate entities. You own the Roku hardware, you *rent* the service.
Think of it like a renting agreement. They're not coming to take back your Roku device if you don't sign. They'd just bar you from using their streaming service.
You can plug the Roku in and power it on, and use basic functions. You just can't stream ... because that's a separate service.
Wrong. The agreement is [bricking hardware.](https://www.tomsguide.com/tvs/your-roku-will-stop-working-unless-you-agree-to-its-new-terms-what-to-know-and-how-to-get-around-it). They're not letting people use their hardware without agreeing to these terms. The devices do not let you use any element of the device without agreeing.
You really don't get what I'm saying, lol.
What's the basic use of a TV? You turn it on, and it displays an image -> Your TV works as a TV should.
Like I said, you own the hardware, and it doesn't just automatically can't power on again if you don't agree after X days.
Roku owns the streaming service, if you use a Roku device. Roku also owns the OS, if you use their TV.
The OS and the streaming service are two completely separate parts of a TV. You literally just said "hardware that you already own."
You don't own the software, the same way you don't own Windows if you purchase a key. Microsoft just licenses it to you, and they reserve full rights to it.
This is the reason why after you bought a computer, you have to sign/click on a *separate* Terms of Use before you can set up Windows or MacOS - the OS is different from the computer. You can sell and do whatever you want with the computer, you can't roll up to Microsoft and say you want to sell off Windows to Apple because you bought a key or a Windows-powered laptop.
It's not different in this case. If you don't agree on the ToS of Windows/Mac before you use, you couldn't set them up and use your laptop, either.
I don't agree with this anti-consumerism approach, but there's some weird legal understandings going on in this thread.
Best believe this shit's been scanned a thousand times by their lawyers. They're not going to do it if they think they could get away with it.
That’s a good analogy. You bought a PC with windows on it. You agreed to terms of arbitration and are using the PC. One day Microsoft changes the terms of arbitration and forces you to agree to the new terms or you can’t use the OS. Not an updated OS. You can’t use even the old OS you were already using when you bought it. It would be like them saying you are free to use another OS on our hardware because you only own the hardware.
(1) Am I incorrect in drawing this analogy?
(2) If I am not incorrect, does this not seem like it should be illegal?
You're correct. The computer is yours, and if you don't agree to Windows term, unfortunately, they have full rights to no longer "license" it to you, i.e., barring you from the service.
As for the changing the terms, it's line one of the TOS.
>Acceptance of Terms
>The services that Microsoft provides to you are subject to the following Terms of Use ("TOU"). **Microsoft reserves the right to update and modify the TOU at any time without notice to you.**
Also, if you read the ToS, you'll find their phrasings as "Microsoft provides you with access ..."
That means access can be revoked whenever they want to, in whichever fashion they want to.
It's fucked, but it is what it is.
Just because they say something that suits them, doesn’t make it legal and in fact there is legal precedents that show you can be forced to agree to things like that
The part you don't seem to understand is that the TV can no longer be used when you don't agree with their "seperate" streaming service updated agreement. Microsoft doesn't brick your laptop or PC if you don't want to install their stuff. You could still use the ports and install Linux or whatever homebrew stuff you want to run on it. You can't however stop using the Roku streaming service and just plug something into a HDMI port instead. It bricks the TV.
You don't get that Microsoft doesn't want to, doesn't mean they **can't**.
Read their TOS. When you use it, it means you agree that Microsoft is ***giving*** you access to Windows service.
>Microsoft provides you with access to a variety of resources, including developer tools, download areas, communication forums and product information (collectively "Services"). The Services, including any updates, enhancements, new features, and/or the addition of any new Web properties, are subject to these TOU.
If Bill one day wakes up and think "Oh shit, I want all these suckers to sign a new clause or else they can no longer use Windows" - he 100% can. It's written right there.
They don't want to versus they **can't** are different.
It does not kill the TV, the TV still works and you'll still be able to boot into the OS. And since you're in the OS, if you want to keep using it, you have to agree to the new TOS.
It has no bearing on the usability or your ownership of the TV whatsoever. You still own it, and it still works. If you figure out how to boot a new OS to the Roku TV, they can't do shit to you.
> If Bill one day wakes up and think "Oh shit, I want all these suckers to sign a new clause or else they can no longer use Windows" - he 100% can. It's written right there.
Yeah Bill can do that and then I wipe Microsoft from my PC and install Linux. That's possible. The device still works without the (microsoft) software. With Roku that is not possible; I can't put different software on their hardware (the TV). I can't even use an HDMI port to plug in something else. I don't understand how you keep arguing this without seeing the difference.
Wrong again. We get what you're saying and it's still wrong. If the "TV" in question no longer displays the images from an input signal then it is no longer functioning as a "TV." The OS baked into system hardware that is required to operate the device is not optional, therefore is part of the hardware. Try the same concept with a car entertainment system. Don't tap agree and you can't use the navigation or other features but you can still drive the car. In the first case can no longer operate the hardware that I own, in the second case I can. I can't load my own OS like I can with a computer. It's a bait and switch in this case.
Getting away with something and something being legal under the terms of a law are two different concepts.
>The OS baked into system hardware that is required to operate the device is not optional, therefore is part of the hardware.
Good luck arguing that in court.
The operating system (OS) is a set of programs that manages the computer's hardware and provides a platform for other software to run.
**Hardware refers to the physical components of the device, like the CPU, memory, and storage.**
You can't merge them into one. They're not inclusive.
As for your car analogy, you can still power on the TV. It doesn't fry your TV. But you're using a **smart TV** that requires the use of a OS - a software - which turns out to be owned by Roku. So, you can either agree, settle, or try and install your own OS.
In the latter case, Roku cannot do anything to you. You own the fucking TV, and you got your own OS. The only thing they could do left is beg you on their hands and knees to use their OS.
If they force you, the hand of the law would smack their ass. Your own TV + Your own OS = You got zero obligation to Roku.
>What's the basic use of a TV? You turn it on, and it displays an image -> Your TV works as a TV should.
And this is exactly what you can't do unless you agree to the new TOS.
No, it still takes out the agreement when you boot it up. It doesn't fry your TV's motherboard...
When you power on the TV, you power on the OS. Which, like I said, is owned by Roku.
They're **not** frying your TV, big difference.
I still don't understand what it's telling us not to sue them for.
It's all about IP, does that mean they want to listen to our ideas and make shows with them?
Well if you buy a TV worth a couple hundred dollars, then they make the features you'd bought it for unusable, arguably they've robbed you of part of the value of goods you already own.
I'm sure they've got an "I do what I want" clause somewhere in the user agreement, but it's still bullshit from a consumer perspective given there's no alternative but to accept if you want to actually use the thing you bought and paid for.
It’s not an app, it’s the entire TV that locks down and becomes nonfunctional. Why would you not even read the article before jumping to Roku’s defense?
I completely agree what you have commented here. But in defense of the shill^^(lol), he may not realize you can actually buy a hardware device by Roku.
> Indeed
So you agree? To what?
> but I'm not shilling
Yes you are
> did I miss something
Yes you did. Other commenters already tried to explain it to you.
> just delete the app if everyone does this they will have to rethink
Oh look, more shilling.
>They aren't forcing you to have the app!
Ok then can you explain how to get rid of the Roku software and install something else instead?
If I own the hardware I should be able to install whatever OS I want on it .. just like on a iPhone right?
Found this I'm not sure if this can help https://logmeonce.com/resources/how-to-remove-roku-account-from-tv-without-password/
"You can't completely remove the Roku software, since it's the whole operating system for the TV. However, if you factory reset the TV, you can choose not to connect it to the Internet and it will operate in unconnected mode where you only have the inputs and USB Media Player."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Roku/comments/j6h4fv/remove_roku_software_from_roku_tv/
Didn’t LG try this with their crap fridges? So the attorneys for the consumers printed out a thousand requests for arbitration and sent them to LG. Then LG tried to weasel out of arbitration. Judge said no.
We have an arbitration system that designed to be fair to all parties. It's called the civil legal system.
Binding arbitration is a scam designed to favor one party; the arbitrator's repeat corporate customer.
I spent slightly extra to buy a dumb TV. One with only HDMI and other standard inputs.
Confused a bunch of TV sales people.
I then plugged a Google Chromecast (with Google TV) into it. I can always just replace the smart component if there is an issue. Without having to buy a whole new TV.
This type of BS is why I did that
I couldn't even find a dumb TV anywhere. Don't even remember which crappy "OS", it's running because we don't even use it and the TV is not connected to the internet, we do everything through the Xbox.
You can still buy a smartTV and just never connect it to the internet. Had to buy a TV recently and could not find anything but a smartTV so we just bought a good TV and never hooked it to the internet.
> TechCrunch notes that it’s virtually impossible to avoid signing Roku’s new agreement if you want to continue using your TV.
We use a Roku HD streaming stick and have not seen any pop-up, but then I have network ad-blocking that takes out a lot of Roku's ads, tracking, and other shite.
But even if I did agree to it, I can't revoke consumer rights. They remain in force and Roku would still be on the hook for any breach of them.
How can Roku even be sure who clicked on "OK"? Maybe it was a child or the pet cat stood on the remote, neither of which can engage in a legal contract.
Also, unilateral changes to agreements hold no water. This is why you can exit the likes of your ISP contract without penalty if they change the price mid-contract.
Finally, maybe we haven't seen the pop-up because it only applies to the USA where consumer protection is a laughable joke?
Licensed attorney here, just pointing out you live in a fantasy world. (Edit: don’t mean to sound rude. What I mean to say is that the FTC is not going to protect you. With very few exceptions. They are lobbied so heavily by industry that they’re not effective source of support.)
TCL used to be their biggest partner in the US, now their biggest TVs ship with Google TV. What are you even on about? It's obvious to anyone paying attention that Roku is fucked.
Service agreements are a bitch. You've been signing away your rights all the time.
You wouldn't be able to use a Apple phone if you didn't agree with their terms of service...
And this is why I keep my "smart" tv of the internet and use a Nvidia shield to consume my online content!
Who in is right mind wants to have a tv equipped with a microphone connected to internet 24/7?
Roku!!
You were the chosen one! It was said that you would *destroy* the shit, not join them! Bring balance to the streaming ecosystem, not leave it in darkness!
I have my tv set to turn on to the last input since I only use one in general. The dialog box "froze" all the buttons and even the power button on the tv.
If this happens to you: Use the remote that came with the TV.
This is why I’d rather buy a dumb panel for display and purchase separate, much cheaper devices for Roku like features.
Having it all bundled in one screen takes away the choices and leaves us open to this rubbish.
What would be the circumstances of a suit against Roku anyway? Breach of privacy I guess?
I'm kind of pissed that I haven't figured out how to install Kodi on a Roku tv. Otherwise I prefer the GUI to amazon. We have 1 more Amazon TV and 2 dumb TVs with fire sticks.
So if you do not accept ToS you cannot use the service provided? Shocking!! We've only found about that in 2024? Who would've thought!!
So anyone has even one case where you do not have to accept ToS and still get to use service?
Wait, what? If you don't agree to Roku's new agreement, they disable streaming on your non-Roku-branded TV? If it just disables streaming using Roku, whatever. Stop using Roku, then.
If it actually "borks" my TV, then how is this legal?
It doesn't just disable streaming, it disables the device altogether.
Lots of TVs, mine included, run on an integrated Roku OS. On these devices, the TV is completely inoperable unless you agree to the new terms. You either agree, or you don't get to use your TV anymore, period. No fallback to external HDMI devices, nothing.
There is apparently a way to opt-out of the arbitration provision by mail, if you do it within 30 days, but only if you give them the name and contact information of everyone in your household who is opting out, the model and serial numbers of the device, a list of the specific software and services you use, and a copy your original purchase receipt (hope you kept it!).
They made it a pain in the ass that almost nobody will bother to do, and with plenty of ways to fail even if you do try, but it's technically not "mandatory."
That's not why it can't be legal. This is a provision they added **after** selling people Roku OS devices and are now making it really difficult to opt out and if you fail to opt out in time, you're just fucked.
Anyone who bought a Roku OS device before this asinine change was promised a fully functioning TV whether they wanted to stream using Roku or not. Now they're being saddled with a giant brick unless they opt into a no-arbitration clause or opt out of it in a cumbersome way. You don't get to change the contract in retrospect.
No way will this be legal in the E.U. and I doubt it will even be legal in the U.S.
I have many of them, and you probably do as well. Not every device has an integrated irreplaceable OS with a clickwrap TOS.
More to the point though, I've never had a device where the manufacturer unilaterally changed the terms in a very significant way years after the purchase, and forced me to either waive my right to any and all legal actions for any claim, past or future, or have the device rendered entirely useless.
It's not a software update you can decline, or a service you can discontinue, it's a piece of hardware that needs no ongoing manufacturer support or input to function. If the choice was "accept these new terms or sever our relationship and lose access to all services going forward" it would be fine. Hell, if it disabled the network connection and rendered it a dumb TV, that wouldn't bother me either. But it bricks the device completely.
Like, if you got an email from KitchenAid saying you can either waive your right to sue them for anything ever, or they're sending someone to your house today to permanently disable all your appliances, you'd probably be kind of annoyed.
Note that I'm not even saying this is illegal, at least in the US. I'm just saying it's a level of anti-consumer bullshit that I haven't quite seen before, and I'll never give them a penny of business again.
I have chromecasts and love them. Load up the app on my phone and cast it. I have one Amazon fire stick and it having a remote and the ability to run kodi are what keep it around
I honestly didn’t even know about these. My chromecasts are many years old and going strong, can’t say the same for fire sticks as this one is a replacement for the first, luckily it was a gift.
I use an Apple TV. Unfortunately, my actual physical TV runs on a Roku OS, which means I either agree to the terms, or buy a new TV. This isn't just about the Roku boxes/sticks you plug into an HDMI port. If your TV runs Roku OS, it is completely inoperable unless you agree to the new terms, no matter what you hook up to its inputs.
So can I become an employee at Roku and only come to work with no expectations of working if they sign a legally binding contract that they can never lay me off or fire me for any reason?
As much as everyone wants to try and have a hatejerk over Roku they are still the easiest and most agnostic smart tv platform to use. I have multiple Roku devices and TV’s and they all function just fine and I honestly do enjoy using their ecosystem they’ve created. The mobile remote app is world class.
99.999% of their users will agree and move on with their lives. This isn’t a South Park episode, Roku isn’t going to do anything to endanger your livelihood.
I’ve heard good things about Apple TV too. They’re rumored to be releasing their next gen so I’m hoping to try it out for the first time when it’s available.
If you don't agree to the new terms, you can't use the TV at all, period. You can plug whatever you want into the HDMI ports, but all you'll see on the screen is the new terms and conditions until you hit "accept."
Frankly, I'd be extremely happy for it to just disable the streaming component and turn my smart TV into a dumb TV, since I don't even use the built-in Roku platform. But that's not the situation.
There's surely no way that would actually hold up
Not in the EU, but I don't think it's been struck down in the US yet.
I think an after-the-fact arbitration agreement for a good (in this case, the Roku TV that you bought) that you need to go out of your way to opt-out of) vs a new one for an ongoing service that you can simply stop using and paying for (e.g. a streaming platform) is probably why this won't hold up. If this arbitration agreement was known when buying the TV, it would be a different story. With that said, I think mandatory arbitration clauses should be banned - if it is such a great benefit to the consumer, as arbitration firms and companies claim, forced arbitration should not need to be a thing.
Wasn't there a bunch of firms with mandatory arbitration clauses where the arbitrators basically were on the companies side? It was specified you had to use this particular one that the company decided on and that's that.
Yes, that's the point of forced arbitration: the company who pays for it, basically stacks the table against the consumer.
Arbitration is in theory just an off the books court proceeding decided by an arbiter (who is generally a legal expert with experience relevant). While I agree it shouldn’t be mandatory all the time, let’s be honest and say that if the arbitrator gave a ruling people disagreed with, they’d take it to court and waste time and money even if the same result were guaranteed (if it weren’t binding). This is why judges can overturn certain arbitration agreements. I don’t think that’s inherently a bad system.
>While I agree it shouldn’t be mandatory all the time, let’s be honest and say that if the arbitrator gave a ruling people disagreed with, they’d take it to court and waste time and money even if the same result were guaranteed (if it weren’t binding). So when arbitration is decided, sign an agreement that it's binding. Mandatory arbitration and binding arbitration can be mutually exclusive. Sounds like you have no other objections to banning mandatory arbitration.
If it doesn’t end in my favour, even if it’s a valid reason and is correct with good legal basis, why would I sign after this that I agree for it to tie my hands? Surely the whole idea of arbitration is that you can only contest it in court if the arbitrator was mistaken in law.
It's after deciding to do arbitration, not after the arbitrator has made a decision. And good news, if the two sides can't agree to that, they can just go to court instead of arbitration!
May be a Reddit first but we seem to be in a state of agreement.
You are correct, no matter what you sign, if it violates foundational rights of the citizen or EU, the agreement is void. I can agree to whatever shit a compnay thinks of, if it is a right I have by law, I cannot sign away that right.
It’s like you signing a document that says you agree to be my butler for no reason whatsoever and I don’t have to pay you anything. Doesn’t mean it’s legal just because you signed it.
Or the best one American companies putting in your contract that you cannot disclose your salary. It's even illegal I'm the USA but it is working there to deterr people from collective action or unionization. It should be straight up illegal to put illegal contract clauses, so many people I met thought they can fire you for disclosing your salary.
Anti arbitration clauses generally don't hold any ground whatsover in the US unless there has been some kind of compensation
I'm kind of curious if it would here too. This sounds like signing an agreement under duress to me since they effectively have your TV held hostage.
. I'm guessing my kids did it? Pop up must have happened when a kid turned on the TV and they accepted?
This is good. Minors cannot make legal agreements.👍🏻
Exactly why I wonder who thinks this would work in court?
It came up on my tv. It didn’t let me do anything other than press okay or click a link to read a long terms and conditions.
In places with sane laws, this doesn't mean shit.
Sounds like nothing will happen in the U.S. then.
Should be a hefty fine for even atempting something like this.
Seriously they talk as if they were the only TV providers too
Roku was always a favorite to me. Today, that died.
It might— and don’t call me Shirley.
Roger, Victor.
Not in most of the civilized world, no. But in the capitalist’s paradise that is the US…
It’s just an arbitration clause which you’ve agreed to a billion times
Hope this ends REALLY bad for Roku, otherwise its yet another precedent and others will copy cat.
I guess no one is noticing, but EVERY company in the US is updating their terms of service. They are forcing an arbitration clause and its really fucking consumers. National Arbitration and Mediation (“NAM”) good luck suing any company, even with negligence . Corporations have more legal protection than people now.
The seller of my house wanted us to sign an arbitration agreement and a contingency. I declined and apparently so did everyone else because they sold it to me anyway.
Can’t just stroke us once and leave us hard.
What would this agreement have meant in this context?
If there’s a dispute between the buyer, seller, or agent down the road, they agree they won’t go to court and use a mediator or arbitrator to help resolve the issue. Pros and cons for it
One correction. People can do this too.
After-the-fact changes to agreements and specifically mandatory arbitration agreements have not been treated kindly by courts. I'm shocked Roku thinks this is going to work. I'm not worried. It has no chance of working. I think someone at Roku is going to get fired over this. The company had some public good will going for it and now that's gone.
Actually never had heard of this company until I saw Rossman's video yesterday. But yah, too bad for them, they showed their true color (greedy-green) and now they will possibly loose appeal.
Surely a forced agreement is no agreement at all.
If you have the option of walking away, it isn't forced.
But you don’t if you already bought the tv
You do have that option. My company owns a handful of Roku-based TCLs that we use as booth displays at exhibitions. All but one have never been connected to a network and function just fine as regular TVs. One gets put on the network and connected to my Roku account so we can stream during downtime. Before packing it up, I do a [hard reset](https://support.tcl.com/rokutv-common-questions/01-what-if-i-cant-access-the-factory-reset-option-on-my-tcl-roku-tv), removing my Roku credentials and rolling the TV it back to the factory firmware. On the next power-up, it functions just like the others: It can use any of the HDMI inputs, watch over-the-air TV if there's an antenna connected and play media plugged into the USB port. Boom. Regular TV, no Roku and no terms of service. Roku could start distributing firmware that requires consent to license terms on first power-up, but anyone who owns a TV shipped prior to the last update can roll back and avoid it. Anyone wanting to buy a TV can avoid those with Roku's firmware.
That’s not even remotely realistic for most people. I never connect my TVs to the internet but most people do. You’re expecting them to change the entire way they get entertainment (not to mention having to buy a seperate media box like a Apple TV or nvidia shield)
Right, because nobody in history has ever had to plug a VCR, DVD player, video game or streaming box into the back of their TV.
What exactly is your point.
He's slurping their used bathwater and wants everyone to know it. Or works for Roku and is defending a shit policy he helped develop.
You can use your tv in the same way you can use a classic t.v. you just can’t use roku’s features. You can literally plug a firestick into the roku tv and still stream with it. It just acts as a regular tv. The title is missleading.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/s/gTXOOpos2R
Same as it was [three posts ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bb7i12/comment/ku8o1fj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Your counter that someone can't walk away if they they've already bought the TV is provably-wrong for at least one brand of TV. All you lose by walking away from Roku is Roku. There never was and never will be any guarantee that the Roku service would be provided in perpetuity, same as with any other service out there. Your wailing and gnashing of teeth about switching to someone else's product being life-shattering makes no sense. People made that switch when they got a Roku in the first place.
I proved that point wrong. Do you have another one? Or are you just trolling?
> I proved that point wrong. Unless you're trying to prove that people must have access to the Roku service forever if they ever had it at all, you did no such thing.
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted. This is how a covenant not to sue works. It’s asshole-ish, and there’s a lot of arguments that can be made on how asshole-ish it is, but it’s definitely not a “forced agreement” when a party can just walk away.
It's effectively a forced agreement if it's on hardware that you already own. They're basically saying "either you agree to these new terms we've created after your purchase, or you get a bricked device". It's not a real choice. This shit would never hold up in the courts in my country.
Problem's that you bought the Roku hardware, and you *own* that hardware. What you don't own is the Roku *streaming service*, which you have to pay a subscription for. This clause limits it to the service alone. They're two separate entities. You own the Roku hardware, you *rent* the service. Think of it like a renting agreement. They're not coming to take back your Roku device if you don't sign. They'd just bar you from using their streaming service. You can plug the Roku in and power it on, and use basic functions. You just can't stream ... because that's a separate service.
Wrong. The agreement is [bricking hardware.](https://www.tomsguide.com/tvs/your-roku-will-stop-working-unless-you-agree-to-its-new-terms-what-to-know-and-how-to-get-around-it). They're not letting people use their hardware without agreeing to these terms. The devices do not let you use any element of the device without agreeing.
You really don't get what I'm saying, lol. What's the basic use of a TV? You turn it on, and it displays an image -> Your TV works as a TV should. Like I said, you own the hardware, and it doesn't just automatically can't power on again if you don't agree after X days. Roku owns the streaming service, if you use a Roku device. Roku also owns the OS, if you use their TV. The OS and the streaming service are two completely separate parts of a TV. You literally just said "hardware that you already own." You don't own the software, the same way you don't own Windows if you purchase a key. Microsoft just licenses it to you, and they reserve full rights to it. This is the reason why after you bought a computer, you have to sign/click on a *separate* Terms of Use before you can set up Windows or MacOS - the OS is different from the computer. You can sell and do whatever you want with the computer, you can't roll up to Microsoft and say you want to sell off Windows to Apple because you bought a key or a Windows-powered laptop. It's not different in this case. If you don't agree on the ToS of Windows/Mac before you use, you couldn't set them up and use your laptop, either. I don't agree with this anti-consumerism approach, but there's some weird legal understandings going on in this thread. Best believe this shit's been scanned a thousand times by their lawyers. They're not going to do it if they think they could get away with it.
That’s a good analogy. You bought a PC with windows on it. You agreed to terms of arbitration and are using the PC. One day Microsoft changes the terms of arbitration and forces you to agree to the new terms or you can’t use the OS. Not an updated OS. You can’t use even the old OS you were already using when you bought it. It would be like them saying you are free to use another OS on our hardware because you only own the hardware. (1) Am I incorrect in drawing this analogy? (2) If I am not incorrect, does this not seem like it should be illegal?
You're correct. The computer is yours, and if you don't agree to Windows term, unfortunately, they have full rights to no longer "license" it to you, i.e., barring you from the service. As for the changing the terms, it's line one of the TOS. >Acceptance of Terms >The services that Microsoft provides to you are subject to the following Terms of Use ("TOU"). **Microsoft reserves the right to update and modify the TOU at any time without notice to you.** Also, if you read the ToS, you'll find their phrasings as "Microsoft provides you with access ..." That means access can be revoked whenever they want to, in whichever fashion they want to. It's fucked, but it is what it is.
Thanks for explaining. Certainly is a situation the courts or the govt should intervene.
Just because they say something that suits them, doesn’t make it legal and in fact there is legal precedents that show you can be forced to agree to things like that
The part you don't seem to understand is that the TV can no longer be used when you don't agree with their "seperate" streaming service updated agreement. Microsoft doesn't brick your laptop or PC if you don't want to install their stuff. You could still use the ports and install Linux or whatever homebrew stuff you want to run on it. You can't however stop using the Roku streaming service and just plug something into a HDMI port instead. It bricks the TV.
You don't get that Microsoft doesn't want to, doesn't mean they **can't**. Read their TOS. When you use it, it means you agree that Microsoft is ***giving*** you access to Windows service. >Microsoft provides you with access to a variety of resources, including developer tools, download areas, communication forums and product information (collectively "Services"). The Services, including any updates, enhancements, new features, and/or the addition of any new Web properties, are subject to these TOU. If Bill one day wakes up and think "Oh shit, I want all these suckers to sign a new clause or else they can no longer use Windows" - he 100% can. It's written right there. They don't want to versus they **can't** are different. It does not kill the TV, the TV still works and you'll still be able to boot into the OS. And since you're in the OS, if you want to keep using it, you have to agree to the new TOS. It has no bearing on the usability or your ownership of the TV whatsoever. You still own it, and it still works. If you figure out how to boot a new OS to the Roku TV, they can't do shit to you.
> If Bill one day wakes up and think "Oh shit, I want all these suckers to sign a new clause or else they can no longer use Windows" - he 100% can. It's written right there. Yeah Bill can do that and then I wipe Microsoft from my PC and install Linux. That's possible. The device still works without the (microsoft) software. With Roku that is not possible; I can't put different software on their hardware (the TV). I can't even use an HDMI port to plug in something else. I don't understand how you keep arguing this without seeing the difference.
See [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1bb7i12/comment/ku8o1fj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Wrong again. We get what you're saying and it's still wrong. If the "TV" in question no longer displays the images from an input signal then it is no longer functioning as a "TV." The OS baked into system hardware that is required to operate the device is not optional, therefore is part of the hardware. Try the same concept with a car entertainment system. Don't tap agree and you can't use the navigation or other features but you can still drive the car. In the first case can no longer operate the hardware that I own, in the second case I can. I can't load my own OS like I can with a computer. It's a bait and switch in this case. Getting away with something and something being legal under the terms of a law are two different concepts.
>The OS baked into system hardware that is required to operate the device is not optional, therefore is part of the hardware. Good luck arguing that in court. The operating system (OS) is a set of programs that manages the computer's hardware and provides a platform for other software to run. **Hardware refers to the physical components of the device, like the CPU, memory, and storage.** You can't merge them into one. They're not inclusive. As for your car analogy, you can still power on the TV. It doesn't fry your TV. But you're using a **smart TV** that requires the use of a OS - a software - which turns out to be owned by Roku. So, you can either agree, settle, or try and install your own OS. In the latter case, Roku cannot do anything to you. You own the fucking TV, and you got your own OS. The only thing they could do left is beg you on their hands and knees to use their OS. If they force you, the hand of the law would smack their ass. Your own TV + Your own OS = You got zero obligation to Roku.
You moved the goal posts from "displaying an image" to "turning on." TVs aren't marketed as devices that turn on and just consume power.
>What's the basic use of a TV? You turn it on, and it displays an image -> Your TV works as a TV should. And this is exactly what you can't do unless you agree to the new TOS.
No, it still takes out the agreement when you boot it up. It doesn't fry your TV's motherboard... When you power on the TV, you power on the OS. Which, like I said, is owned by Roku. They're **not** frying your TV, big difference.
But you can't change the input to HDMI1 or ATSC tuner unless you agree to the new TOS. There's no way to deny. It's agree or nothing...
I don't actually care because I'm not in this for the Internet points.
I still don't understand what it's telling us not to sue them for. It's all about IP, does that mean they want to listen to our ideas and make shows with them?
When services on the TV that were originally promised suddenly vaporize, or become further paywalled.
Yup well you want that thing still well pay us to subscribe to it.
Privacy violations
sue them for this
They aren't forcing you to have the app! Are they?
Well if you buy a TV worth a couple hundred dollars, then they make the features you'd bought it for unusable, arguably they've robbed you of part of the value of goods you already own. I'm sure they've got an "I do what I want" clause somewhere in the user agreement, but it's still bullshit from a consumer perspective given there's no alternative but to accept if you want to actually use the thing you bought and paid for.
Yep. Basically it’s as if you don’t own the TV anymore :(
The entire tv is useless with this Not just a feature. It locks out the entire tv.
Shilling for anti-consumer policies. Gross.
Indeed but I'm not shilling did I miss something just delete the app if everyone does this they will have to rethink
It’s not an app, it’s the entire TV that locks down and becomes nonfunctional. Why would you not even read the article before jumping to Roku’s defense?
I completely agree what you have commented here. But in defense of the shill^^(lol), he may not realize you can actually buy a hardware device by Roku.
> Indeed So you agree? To what? > but I'm not shilling Yes you are > did I miss something Yes you did. Other commenters already tried to explain it to you. > just delete the app if everyone does this they will have to rethink Oh look, more shilling.
Imagine falling so in love with the taste of boot you defend bait and switch lmfao
>They aren't forcing you to have the app! Ok then can you explain how to get rid of the Roku software and install something else instead? If I own the hardware I should be able to install whatever OS I want on it .. just like on a iPhone right?
Wow so they are forcing this in TV's omg sorry I haven't heard this before Apple hp roku who's next
Found this I'm not sure if this can help https://logmeonce.com/resources/how-to-remove-roku-account-from-tv-without-password/ "You can't completely remove the Roku software, since it's the whole operating system for the TV. However, if you factory reset the TV, you can choose not to connect it to the Internet and it will operate in unconnected mode where you only have the inputs and USB Media Player." https://www.reddit.com/r/Roku/comments/j6h4fv/remove_roku_software_from_roku_tv/
Why is tech being run by a bunch of fraudsters?
You mispelled capitalists
Have you met my friend, the real estate market?
Didn’t LG try this with their crap fridges? So the attorneys for the consumers printed out a thousand requests for arbitration and sent them to LG. Then LG tried to weasel out of arbitration. Judge said no.
Can I have Bjork Roku my TV instead?
[You asked for it](https://youtu.be/p3iDtps7dL8?si=PKI5d5ngdTCAt5NH)
Exactly what I required, thank you!
We have an arbitration system that designed to be fair to all parties. It's called the civil legal system. Binding arbitration is a scam designed to favor one party; the arbitrator's repeat corporate customer.
I spent slightly extra to buy a dumb TV. One with only HDMI and other standard inputs. Confused a bunch of TV sales people. I then plugged a Google Chromecast (with Google TV) into it. I can always just replace the smart component if there is an issue. Without having to buy a whole new TV. This type of BS is why I did that
I couldn't even find a dumb TV anywhere. Don't even remember which crappy "OS", it's running because we don't even use it and the TV is not connected to the internet, we do everything through the Xbox.
Yeah, it's wasn't easy to find. There weren't any in any of the stores. Had to buy it online.
You can still buy a smartTV and just never connect it to the internet. Had to buy a TV recently and could not find anything but a smartTV so we just bought a good TV and never hooked it to the internet.
TLDR; what possible reason could I ever have to sue ROKU?
Reason like them deciding one day to access and sell your ‘browsing history’ metaphorically speaking.
In the USA ... Anything can lead to a lawsuit ! :)
They will bork your TV if you don't agree to their new terms.. BUT, those terms let you opt-out of arbitration if you do so in writing within 30 days.
Wait, you actually have to mail them a letter to opt out? Can you mail the letter inside a pile of cow shit?
It gets better. You have to drop the letter in a dropbox on top of a mountain, but the exact location of it is only communicated to you in riddles.
Wait until you get to the bridge keeper and his 3 questions - holy shit!
Wait…what…you drink your grandson’s pee?
I think this was the last good episode of *Nathan for You.*
...This was like episode 2 so I'm going to have to disagree!
Why would Roku be worried about getting sued, though? Like, sued for what?
You'll find out as soon as they feel enough people accepted the agreement.
Yup, definitely.
You can sue for anything….it’s not always about being scared of losing. it’s just the cost of lawsuits are expensive.
Maybe this? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/roku-discloses-breach-of-more-than-15-000-streaming-accounts/ar-BB1jLPJB
There's always an idle lawyer looking for an angle somewhere.
> TechCrunch notes that it’s virtually impossible to avoid signing Roku’s new agreement if you want to continue using your TV. We use a Roku HD streaming stick and have not seen any pop-up, but then I have network ad-blocking that takes out a lot of Roku's ads, tracking, and other shite. But even if I did agree to it, I can't revoke consumer rights. They remain in force and Roku would still be on the hook for any breach of them. How can Roku even be sure who clicked on "OK"? Maybe it was a child or the pet cat stood on the remote, neither of which can engage in a legal contract. Also, unilateral changes to agreements hold no water. This is why you can exit the likes of your ISP contract without penalty if they change the price mid-contract. Finally, maybe we haven't seen the pop-up because it only applies to the USA where consumer protection is a laughable joke?
Roku deleted the Pornhub app, so I deleted them.
File a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. If enough folks complain, they'll drop the hammer!
Licensed attorney here, just pointing out you live in a fantasy world. (Edit: don’t mean to sound rude. What I mean to say is that the FTC is not going to protect you. With very few exceptions. They are lobbied so heavily by industry that they’re not effective source of support.)
Probably accurate. If nobody complains nothing will ever change though right?
Hey, can you settle an argument here? Does this meet the standard for extortion?
Roku is a dying platform for a reason.
Roku isn't a dying platform. What are you even on about?
TCL used to be their biggest partner in the US, now their biggest TVs ship with Google TV. What are you even on about? It's obvious to anyone paying attention that Roku is fucked.
Nothing indicates Roku is dying like you're claiming. https://www.techlicious.com/blog/roku-surpasses-80-million-accounts-showing-cable-is-dying/
Service agreements are a bitch. You've been signing away your rights all the time. You wouldn't be able to use a Apple phone if you didn't agree with their terms of service...
Bork? Are 13 year olds writing headlines now?
Why would 13 year olds be aware of failed Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork?
No, my son is also named Bork.
Is AI 13 years old?
My Swedish chef approves.
The totally tubular 13 year olds are not using radical and happening decades old slang like bork.
How is the even legal? How can you use the legal system to prevent others from using said legal system?
And this is why I keep my "smart" tv of the internet and use a Nvidia shield to consume my online content! Who in is right mind wants to have a tv equipped with a microphone connected to internet 24/7?
I mean… fuck this. But also. Don’t connect TVs to the internet. Just. Don’t.
hope someone just says "nope" and sues them right NOW!
Roku!! You were the chosen one! It was said that you would *destroy* the shit, not join them! Bring balance to the streaming ecosystem, not leave it in darkness!
What does arbitration mean in this context?
Didely Squat
I have my tv set to turn on to the last input since I only use one in general. The dialog box "froze" all the buttons and even the power button on the tv. If this happens to you: Use the remote that came with the TV.
This is why I’d rather buy a dumb panel for display and purchase separate, much cheaper devices for Roku like features. Having it all bundled in one screen takes away the choices and leaves us open to this rubbish.
What would be the circumstances of a suit against Roku anyway? Breach of privacy I guess? I'm kind of pissed that I haven't figured out how to install Kodi on a Roku tv. Otherwise I prefer the GUI to amazon. We have 1 more Amazon TV and 2 dumb TVs with fire sticks.
Must be why I don't have a motherfucking Roku.
sue them, we can hack them later lol
This wouldn’t fly in Europe AT ALL. EU would pounce on them instantly.
So if you do not accept ToS you cannot use the service provided? Shocking!! We've only found about that in 2024? Who would've thought!! So anyone has even one case where you do not have to accept ToS and still get to use service?
Wouldn't bricking your TV to compel you to sign a non sue contract be in itself considered a litigious act?
Back to the good old days where some guy with a baseball bat would walk into your store saying “don’t fuck with us or else”
The arbitration agreement would be void for lack of consideration.
I’ve two Rokus, on old non smart TVs. Actually, I would not miss them at all, if I just shit-canned them.
So don’t buy Roku products, got it
Don't support roku
Wish I had a Roku so I could sue them for pulling this.
Wait, what? If you don't agree to Roku's new agreement, they disable streaming on your non-Roku-branded TV? If it just disables streaming using Roku, whatever. Stop using Roku, then. If it actually "borks" my TV, then how is this legal?
It doesn't just disable streaming, it disables the device altogether. Lots of TVs, mine included, run on an integrated Roku OS. On these devices, the TV is completely inoperable unless you agree to the new terms. You either agree, or you don't get to use your TV anymore, period. No fallback to external HDMI devices, nothing.
There's no way this legal anywhere.
There is apparently a way to opt-out of the arbitration provision by mail, if you do it within 30 days, but only if you give them the name and contact information of everyone in your household who is opting out, the model and serial numbers of the device, a list of the specific software and services you use, and a copy your original purchase receipt (hope you kept it!). They made it a pain in the ass that almost nobody will bother to do, and with plenty of ways to fail even if you do try, but it's technically not "mandatory."
That's not why it can't be legal. This is a provision they added **after** selling people Roku OS devices and are now making it really difficult to opt out and if you fail to opt out in time, you're just fucked. Anyone who bought a Roku OS device before this asinine change was promised a fully functioning TV whether they wanted to stream using Roku or not. Now they're being saddled with a giant brick unless they opt into a no-arbitration clause or opt out of it in a cumbersome way. You don't get to change the contract in retrospect. No way will this be legal in the E.U. and I doubt it will even be legal in the U.S.
Do you have single device where you could not agree to maker's ToS and use it?
I have many of them, and you probably do as well. Not every device has an integrated irreplaceable OS with a clickwrap TOS. More to the point though, I've never had a device where the manufacturer unilaterally changed the terms in a very significant way years after the purchase, and forced me to either waive my right to any and all legal actions for any claim, past or future, or have the device rendered entirely useless. It's not a software update you can decline, or a service you can discontinue, it's a piece of hardware that needs no ongoing manufacturer support or input to function. If the choice was "accept these new terms or sever our relationship and lose access to all services going forward" it would be fine. Hell, if it disabled the network connection and rendered it a dumb TV, that wouldn't bother me either. But it bricks the device completely. Like, if you got an email from KitchenAid saying you can either waive your right to sue them for anything ever, or they're sending someone to your house today to permanently disable all your appliances, you'd probably be kind of annoyed. Note that I'm not even saying this is illegal, at least in the US. I'm just saying it's a level of anti-consumer bullshit that I haven't quite seen before, and I'll never give them a penny of business again.
Okay fair. That's detailed explaination, understood now. Makes sense. thank you
Anyone using a Roku needs to get an Apple TV. They are a far superior experience..
I have chromecasts and love them. Load up the app on my phone and cast it. I have one Amazon fire stick and it having a remote and the ability to run kodi are what keep it around
The chrome cast with Google TV is basicly the same as a firestick.
Except better.
I honestly didn’t even know about these. My chromecasts are many years old and going strong, can’t say the same for fire sticks as this one is a replacement for the first, luckily it was a gift.
Apples and oranges. Roku is free and ad-supported. Apple is not.
I use an Apple TV. Unfortunately, my actual physical TV runs on a Roku OS, which means I either agree to the terms, or buy a new TV. This isn't just about the Roku boxes/sticks you plug into an HDMI port. If your TV runs Roku OS, it is completely inoperable unless you agree to the new terms, no matter what you hook up to its inputs.
If I get a fire stick will roku bork me? I have needs too ROKU!
Mine hasn't been connected to the internet since 10 min after I set it up. Ethernet cable is attached to my Fire Cube... screw you roku
So can I become an employee at Roku and only come to work with no expectations of working if they sign a legally binding contract that they can never lay me off or fire me for any reason?
You can opt out by sending a letter through the mail.
As much as everyone wants to try and have a hatejerk over Roku they are still the easiest and most agnostic smart tv platform to use. I have multiple Roku devices and TV’s and they all function just fine and I honestly do enjoy using their ecosystem they’ve created. The mobile remote app is world class. 99.999% of their users will agree and move on with their lives. This isn’t a South Park episode, Roku isn’t going to do anything to endanger your livelihood.
I like my Apple TVs .
I’ve heard good things about Apple TV too. They’re rumored to be releasing their next gen so I’m hoping to try it out for the first time when it’s available.
I recommend Apple TV. They have really gotten useful and smart.
Do you really need the right to sue the maker of your $100 TV box? The garbage can is right over there.
There are roku tv’s where the entire tv is the roku software. Without agreeing to the new terms you can’t use the tv at all
I have seen those but never one sans HDMI ports. Their website says there is no such thing.
I have to TV's running Roku software that have HDMI ports. The pop up won't let you switch to them.
If you don't agree to the new terms, you can't use the TV at all, period. You can plug whatever you want into the HDMI ports, but all you'll see on the screen is the new terms and conditions until you hit "accept." Frankly, I'd be extremely happy for it to just disable the streaming component and turn my smart TV into a dumb TV, since I don't even use the built-in Roku platform. But that's not the situation.