12 ms·

Ask HN: Fighting back against Roku's forced arbitration?

62 points by mtlynch 3y ago

I received an email a few days ago from Roku telling me that they've updated their dispute resolution terms to require forced arbitration: https://docs.roku.com/published/disputeresolution/en/us The new terms are obviously skewed entirely in Roku's favor. They say that consumers can't sue Roku in court and can't participate in class-action lawsuits. You can opt-out, a detail they conveniently omitted in the notification email, but it has to be in writing within 30 days. It irritates me that Roku and other corporations are allowed to force millions of customers into spending an hour or so to read these new terms and send a letter in the mail. Are there things that I can do as a consumer to fight back against this bad behavior by Roku? In the long term, I'll support candidates and federal bills that make forced arbitration illegal, but in the short term, what can I do to discourage this behavior by Roku and other companies?

rebeccahill 3y ago
Flood there phones and emails People https://docs.roku.com/published/disputeresolution/en/us https://docs.roku.com/published/disputeresolution/en/us For legal correspondence only, please contact: Stephen Kay Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Roku, Inc. 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112 generalcounsel@roku.com Phone number: 408-556-9391 Fax number: 408-364-1260 Workaround Hard Reset. Won't let you use your Internet connection unless you register your email. Which requires you agreeing to new terms. Only works if you HDMI to another Device. We have it hooked up to our Desktop Computer VIA HDMI. It is now a Giant Monitor
jbear159 3y ago
I bought a TCL Roku TV with this new dispute resolution binding individual arbitration class action waiver if I don't agree to it I can no longer use my TV and I refuse to agree to it so how do I get my money back for my TV ?
jbear159 3y ago
I bought a TCL Roku TV with this new dispute resolution binding individual arbitration class action waiver if I don't agree to it I can no longer use my TV how do I get my money back for my TV cuz I don't agree with it
dfulmer 3y ago
Why the surprise as this is what we can expect out of another woke company that’s main office is in the California Bay Area? I’m ticked that the Terms descriptions they provide are way too long and not easily understood at all. Why can’t they just speak in English in a way that customers can understand without a law degree. Idiots!
msward 3y ago
All the streaming apps I have on my Roku TV, I also have on my Smart Samsung phone & Tablet. I was fortunate to have setup my Roku TV with OTA Free Broadcast Channels. So when I turn my Roku TV on, it defaults to Antenna input. By having my Roku TV setup to start in Antenna input, I am able to Samsung SmartView (Casting Directly to the Roku TV) from my Samsung Phone or Tablet and still watch the same streaming services as previous. I have not yet agreed to the Forced Arbitration Agreement. Wanting to wait some time, to see if this ends up a cause to bring a Class Action Case against Roku
peteforde 3y ago
I very briefly considered developing "channels" (apps) for Roku, but backed off quickly: - the entire vibe of the Roku content ecosystem is a Venn diagram of "right-wing fever dream" meets shovelware - the developer experience (language, API, tooling) is like an alt-history where ASP, XML and DRM-for-everything won - there is a distinct two-tier class system where big players can write native executables in something C-like, but everyone else needs to use a slow, interpreted template script thing - it's basically impossible to create something that can be discovered without pouring a lot of money into platform ads I encourage anyone still reading to fight back by not buying Roku-enabled products.
- loloquwowndueo 3y ago
  What’s your recommended alternative?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - project2501a 3y ago
    Why has there to be an alternative? Just don't. Roku is not exactly solving world hunger, it is not essential.
    - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
      So do you watch cable and broadcast tv exclusively? Or to rephrase my question - what should I use for streaming, for example, Netflix to my nice big tv?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - stonogo 3y ago
        Just cast to it from your phone like most people?
jkaplowitz 3y ago
Unfortunately, interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act by the US Supreme Court in recent decades have made it very clear that what they're doing is legal nationwide under US law, with or without an opportunity to opt out. And it's gotten so widespread that I don't think there's a good fix short of changing the law - it's not like enough alternative vendors exist for many of the products and services that now require arbitration, so one can't just pick alternatives. Sometimes there is a way to fight back by having a single law firm file a lot of individual arbitrations based on similar facts and circumstances, yielding an approximation of a class action lawsuit that's more annoying and potentially more expensive for the company. But Roku seems to have crafted their terms to close that workaround. The only real way to get out from this right now, beyond leveraging any opt-out procedures you have the energy to follow to the letter, is to move to places outside the US where consumer protection laws make this illegal in the consumer context. For example, many European countries or certain Canadian provinces like Quebec. And even that wouldn't help usage that doesn't fall within the scope of the applicable consumer protection law, such as a product or service which you primarily use in a professional context.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Unfortunately, interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act by the US Supreme Court in recent decades have made it very clear that what they're doing is legal nationwide under US law, with or without an opportunity to opt out. Do you have sources for that? The reason I ask is because I am aware that forced arbitration clauses have been upheld at the point of purchase, but changing Ts and Cs after the fact, where many people may not even read them, seems like it should be a gross violation. What kind of contract law allows one party to change substantive terms in the contract at any time? I'd be very curious to know if that (specifically a change to forced arbitration after initial sign up) has ever been tested in court. I was searching because I was curious, and I thought this Reddit comment has some good context: https://old.reddit.com/r/Etsy/comments/14eo9l0/changes_to_etsys_term_of_service_arbitration/jp24gdy/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Etsy/comments/14eo9l0/changes_to_et... That is (and I'm taking that comment with appropriate grain of salt) it does sound like companies add the opt out provision specifically to help these clauses stand up in court, so you should just always opt out.
paulgb 3y ago
During the Equifax debacle, I was so pissed that they tried to foist an arbitration agreement on their own victims that I offered to mass-mail opt-outs for people for free[1]. I ended up printing and mailing over 1,000 opt-outs, and they eventually backed down on the arbitration stuff (I don't take credit for that, there were a lot of others calling on them to). If you're pissed enough, consider doing that :) The whole thing cost me probably about $50 in certified mail postage and domain registration but it was fun to stick it to them. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15207151
ta1243 3y ago
I've never heard of roku. I'd suggest voting with your dollar. It looks like this is some form of set-top-box system, I suggest using free software if you want freedom -- is XBMC still a thing?
- jetbalsa 3y ago
  Its mostly Jellyfin is king of open source media library stuff, XBMC morphed into Kodi over time and is still used as a OS / Media Library as well
- BadHumans 3y ago
  You've never heard of Roku? That's pretty impressive honestly. I assumed they were a household name.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    I only heard of roku because my money obsessed friend kept talking about it and its stock price. For years I didn't even know what he was talking about until I asked him one day. Seemed like a stupid product to lose money and I told him. I have never heard of Roku outside of conversations with him.
    - Talanes 3y ago
      Do an image search for "Roku screensaver" and see if that looks familiar to you. It's not really the sort of product that gets brought up directly by name a lot, but I've seen that screensaver in plenty of homes and a surprising number of businesses.
      - thsksbd 3y ago
        Never seen that screensaver before. Which really isn't that surprising. I'm a late 90s with ADSL kid. I've pirated movies and shows since I was 15. So I never had cable as adult, I have never bought a "TV" just computer monitors. My parents have some google stick (thats what a Roku is?) on their TV that my sisters bought. I find it super annoying.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Have you participated in a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding? I have, from both corporate and individual sides, and the one thing I can say is I'm glad I've never been named in a lawsuit. knocks on wood If you have cash, public suits are great. You have a chance at setting precedent, get to make a PR splash and generally troll and embarass your opponent. If you don't have six+ figures of liquidity lying around, however, and your opponent does--and they know it--you're toast. They'll file for extraneous motions, launch counter-discovery: anything to rack up the legal bills. In most cases, it doesn't even advance that far. The motions and countersuits were disclosed, plaintiff's law firm asked their client for a six-figure retainer, client couldn't afford it and the issue went away. (With the client a few thousand, or tens of thousand, out of pocket or in debt, depending on whether they advanced from dicussing with counsel to hiring a litigator.) Forced arbitration in cases of possible crimes, e.g. sexual harassment at the workplace or poisonous products, are a sham. They should be outlawed. But in cases of commercial contract disputes, they're--in my experience--a levelling agent for the little guy. The only people who seem to publicly launch missives against them are class-action attorneys (unsurprisingly, one of the most PR-savvy collections of counsel). Maybe the middle ground is permitting a class exception to mandatory arbitration. But there is a reason large companies are removing arbitration as something you can force them into [1], largely in reaction to mass arbitration, which delivers arbitration's low-cost analogy to litigation in respect of class actions. [1] https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/amazon-drops-arbitration-requirement-after-facing-75000-demands https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/amazon-drops-arbitra...
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  Seconded. One of my contract gigs (somehow) escalated to the point where they sent the final paycheck only after I was in the process of initiating arbitration procedures. If my only option was to sue, I wouldn’t have gotten paid for the last two weeks of work. My situation was a little different than what OP is asking about, but the experience was pleasant and approachable, so I wanted to chime in as a data point for "the little guy."
  - eadler 3y ago
    Fairly negotiated arbitration in a B2B context is entirely different. This is what the FAA was designed for.
throwaxenu 3y ago
The nuttiest case I came across WRT arbitration was that Scientology has persuaded some courts that they can't hear cases against scientology filed by former members, until an arbitration has been conducted run by scientology itself. From https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-secret-hell-of-going-to-war-with-scientology https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-secret-hell-of-goin... "However, in January 2020, Scientology convinced Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Richard Burdge Jr. that because Haney signed her exit agreement on that day in 2017 with the attorney Gary Soter and the armed security guard watching her, she was obliged by that contract not to sue the church but to submit to its own brand of internal “religious arbitration.”" " Haney testified that she was astonished to see someone she considered one of her “abusers” (as her attorneys described her in the Status Conference Report filed in her lawsuit) to be on the panel that would supposedly judge her claims fairly ."
laurihaz 3y ago
Can’t opt out. I paid good money for a TV. I can’t even use Apple TV casing via Amazon Prime. Absolute bullshit!
VASHTIDEPP777 3y ago
[flagged]

eadler 3y ago

I've been involved with both litigation and arbitration. I've also extensively researched the topic: see every article, footnote, and final opinion of every cited case in the website [0]. I'm actually in middle of multiple such cases now. This is misguided. You are correct that a fairly negotiated arbitration agreement can be cheaper for both sides. Corporate mandatory arbitration agreements like the ones found in terms of service are not these. Companies will continue to use a mixture of court and arbitration procedures to raise your costs and delay cases when they can. I actually started with an opinion similar to yours but ended up changing my mind as I read more. This is the brief summary. [1] I tried to cover counter arguments too. If you know of any others I'd love to hear more. I seriously want to steelman support for mandatory arbitration agreements where possible. [0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ [1] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> want to steelman support for mandatory arbitration agreements where possible I'll restrict my arguments to commercial and consumer mandatory arbitration agreements. Those are the ones I'm familiar with. After reviewing your sources, I'm unconvinced--for commerce and consumption--that the complaints hold. Arbitrarors are mutually picked. Every major arbitration venue has strict rules on who is qualified to arbitrate. And the cost, speed and access is definitely better than litigation. (Delaying a case and bleeding out your opponent are separate. The capacity for both is much higher in litigation.) That said, I'm massively in favour of arbitration reform. For consumer--and commercial agreements where there is a material disparity in size between the parties--there should be a standard set of terms, written in plain English, which drafters may use. Step outside those, and the standard for judicial review (and state regulation) is lowered. If a sufficient number of arbitration claims are similar, they should be allowed to petition to form a class.
- eadler 3y ago
  I want to reiterate that I'm only against mandatory arbitration agreements. I'm not opposed to fairly negotiated arbitration agreements or a post-dispute decision to use arbitration. One thing I can do on the website is to make it more clear the scope of the problem. > I'll restrict my arguments to commercial and consumer mandatory arbitration agreements. Those are the ones I'm familiar with. This is definitely the area that has the strongest arguments in favour of arbitration (even mandatory pre-dispute). I'll have more to say later > Every major arbitration venue has strict rules on who is qualified to arbitrate. For example AAA and JAMS (which are the better known and more respected ones) do have standards. However, in virtually every study conducted they demonstrate both theoretical (arbiters saying that they are aware of who pays them) and actual bias (looking at the outcomes themselves). > And the cost, speed and access is definitely better than litigation. (Delaying a case and bleeding out your opponent are separate. The capacity for both is much higher in litigation.) This is only partly true. For example a company can spend similar resources to avoid arbitration in the first place. Also don't forget the mandatory "pre-dispute" negotiations that require you to appear or deep limitations on what's allowed (see https://gopro.com/en/us/legal/terms#dispute https://gopro.com/en/us/legal/terms#dispute for one of the more egregious ones). If the companies act in good faith and come to the table, and the disputed amounts are low enough that a lawyer doesn't need to be involved, this is probably cheaper and better. > That said, I'm massively in favour of arbitration reform. For consumer--and commercial agreements where there is a material disparity in size between the parties--there should be a standard set of terms, written in plain English, which drafters may use. Step outside those, and the standard for judicial review (and state regulation) is lowered. If a sufficient number of arbitration claims are similar, they should be allowed to petition to form a class. I don't yet have a fully developed thought for what the world should look like but here are some of my "early thoughts" to post on HN (as opposed to the website which I try and keep well-sourced). 1) Southland Corp. v. Keating should be overturned entirely. It, frankly, is unjustifiable based on the plain meaning of the law, the rules of statutory interpretation, and the historical context of the time. Fixing this would also return power to the states to decide their own contract law. 2) I'd love to see some system similar to Canada's civil resolution tribunal. This is effectively a "small claims" court that allows consumers to meaningfully get resolution without the need for lawyers or detailed procedure. 3) Consumer arbitration should be a revocable until arbitration begins. Recall that the CFPB found that when signing these agreements only 7% of those that understood that they permanently gave up their right to sue. I'm not opposed to arbitration as a litigation strategy (which may be positive for both sides) but it must be a meaningful choice. 4) Perhaps give better access to "limited jurisdiction" courts to consumers. This allows for a proper lawsuit but without the complexity of "general jurisdiction" courts. Most of the delaying tactics are more restricted in such a court. 5) Recall that arbiters are not required to (a) know the law, (b) apply the law correctly, or even (c) explain themselves. This is broken. I don't know of a good solution that would retain the speed and "finality" of arbitration but allow for meaningful oversight. Class action waivers are insane and should be disallowed on the basis of public policy. I can't find any argument against disallowing them. I'd also love to see terms of service as a whole be standardised. Similar to your suggestion about arb agreements - but for terms as a whole. You should be required to use some kind of "standard paper" or be subject to severe judicial oversight that predisposes against the drafter. FWIW I did actually have the "cost, speed and access" arguments listed on the "problems" page -- though I could probably spend some time to expand them to make them stronger.