▲ 701 ▼ Roku disables TVs and streaming devices until users consent to new terms (techcrunch.com) submitted 2 years ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world 119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 184 points 2 years ago (12 children) The devices those users paid for? That should be illegal. permalink fedilink source hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 180 points 2 years ago* (11 children) I'm pretty sure this won't fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this "feature" was not advertised, and they're not being denied access to a product they purchased. It's clearly coercive. However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) deleted by creator permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don't know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn't ask). It's fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can't credit them since I don't recall their name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 2 years ago Props for not claiming it anyways permalink fedilink source parent [–] Turun@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* "Roger Rodger" "we've got clearance Clarence" "What's our vector victor?" From the movie airplane. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dan1101@lemm.ee 26 points 2 years ago (5 children) Also how would they prove the owner even saw the notice they supposedly agreed to? This is probably them testing the waters for something worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] fragnoli@lemmy.one 30 points 2 years ago (4 children) We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago You didn’t consent and your child can’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose? permalink fedilink source parent [–] xpinchx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Same. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago The point is that few have the money to prove this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 180 points 2 years ago* (11 children) I'm pretty sure this won't fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this "feature" was not advertised, and they're not being denied access to a product they purchased. It's clearly coercive. However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) deleted by creator permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don't know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn't ask). It's fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can't credit them since I don't recall their name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 2 years ago Props for not claiming it anyways permalink fedilink source parent [–] Turun@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* "Roger Rodger" "we've got clearance Clarence" "What's our vector victor?" From the movie airplane. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dan1101@lemm.ee 26 points 2 years ago (5 children) Also how would they prove the owner even saw the notice they supposedly agreed to? This is probably them testing the waters for something worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] fragnoli@lemmy.one 30 points 2 years ago (4 children) We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago You didn’t consent and your child can’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose? permalink fedilink source parent [–] xpinchx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Same. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago The point is that few have the money to prove this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 63 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children) deleted by creator permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don't know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn't ask). It's fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can't credit them since I don't recall their name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 2 years ago Props for not claiming it anyways permalink fedilink source parent [–] Turun@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* "Roger Rodger" "we've got clearance Clarence" "What's our vector victor?" From the movie airplane. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don't know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn't ask). It's fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can't credit them since I don't recall their name. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 2 years ago Props for not claiming it anyways permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 12 points 2 years ago Props for not claiming it anyways permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Turun@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago* "Roger Rodger" "we've got clearance Clarence" "What's our vector victor?" From the movie airplane. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 26 points 2 years ago (5 children) Also how would they prove the owner even saw the notice they supposedly agreed to? This is probably them testing the waters for something worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] fragnoli@lemmy.one 30 points 2 years ago (4 children) We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago You didn’t consent and your child can’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose? permalink fedilink source parent [–] xpinchx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Same. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fragnoli@lemmy.one 30 points 2 years ago (4 children) We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago You didn’t consent and your child can’t. permalink fedilink source parent [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose? permalink fedilink source parent [–] xpinchx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Same. permalink fedilink source parent [+] TheGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago You didn’t consent and your child can’t. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that's not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago The point is that few have the money to prove this. permalink fedilink source parent