7 ms·

"Disgraceful": Messy ToS update allegedly locks Roku devices until users give in

105 points by rurp 3y ago

biomcgary 3y ago
I have a couple Roku products and really liked having an alternative to Apple/Google duopoly and isn't the TV manufacturer. Unfortunately, Roku is under the same short-term profit maximization pressure as everyone else. I rarely turn on a TV anymore and consume media (primarily Netflix and Amazon) on my laptop from websites viewed in Firefox.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  even if they weren't greedy assholes, specialized television is simply not a must have device and they're definitely needing to secure a cash flow. but that's because it's a lightbulb problem. I've been using the same android Nebula pico laser projector for almost a decade. I have YouTube and any other app service if I choose. it's all I need for, essentially, ever.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  I know Plex isn't to everyone's cup of tea (I've created a Jellyfin VM, but haven't tweaked it to direct play most of my content), but since it got an Apple TV client, I've rarely turned on my Roku (I have an Ultra 4 in the entertainment center, and a Streambar in both my office and the guest bedroom).
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    I am currently running plex as unraid docker. I keep wondering if plex one day will bow to the same pressure and start making it unusable for my purposes. Still, now that I have everything running mostly the way I want, I don't want to spend a weekend tweaking stuff. Is jellyfin an easy move?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - WXLCKNO 3y ago
      I think for Plex it's only a matter of time. I run a dedicated server with overseer/radarr/sonarr and a bunch of other arrs and utilities and I love it. As time goes on they keep adding social features no one wants and it feels like at some point they'll make a decision that fucks it up.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        I just have a bunch of video files on an NFS share. No need for all these 3rd party software packages. I’m counting on Linux’s nfs subsystem not adding social features, chat, or other terrible features.
    - biomcgary 3y ago
      I ran Plex a decade ago, but the commercial direction that the project took scared me off when setting up a new media server a couple years ago. I run Jellyfin for all my local content. Not too difficult to set up and maintenance in minimal. The biggest thing is having files named in the format that is recognized. The built it workflow for manually updating the media ID is decent, but takes a bit of time when a lot of content is involved.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Related: Roku's Ultimatum: Surrender Jury Trial Rights or Lose Access to Your TVs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39585607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39585607
- pempem 3y ago
  It is a continuing trend to push arbitration. Go to the dentist? Sign an arbitration clause. Don't sign it? Can't see that dentist (I went to four) Bid on a house! Somewhere between 2020 and 2024 they've added an arbitration clause to the template here in CA. This is slightly different because you owned the hardware but only slightly. Source: https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-subject-to-forced-arbitration/ https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-... https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ Consumers cannot sue for negligence, defective products, or scams. Just by buying a product or service, consumers can lose their right to hold a company accountable. Even if a retirement account disappears, a home is dangerous and defective, or a loved one suffers harm in a nursing home, a forced arbitration clause means there is no right to take the company responsible to court. Arbitration is a private system without a judge, jury, or a right to an appeal. Arbitrators aren't required to take the law and legal precedent into account in making their decisions. There is no appeal or public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got it right. Stanford B school on why its bad for consumers: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio...
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    And the Supreme Court even struck down California's law banning forced arbitration.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    dentistry is one of those specialty that private equity is gobbling up.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
How do they verify the person hitting "agree" is legally able to consent?
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Or that anyone actually pressed agree, let alone the owner. No simple computer action like that can actually be proven to have been done by any particular person, or any person at all vs say soda spill or a kid or a dog or a fall or I was changing the batteries in the other room not even looking at the screen etc etc. There's no way this holds up to the slightest challenge, but they probably won't have to face any challenge because who's going to do it? The math doesn't work for anyone and the legal system doesn't provide any allowance for "it's just harmful to society as a whole to allow this behavior".
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > No simple computer action like that can actually be proven to have been done by any particular person, or any person at all vs say soda spill or a kid or a dog or a fall or I was changing the batteries in the other room not even looking at the screen etc etc. Unfortunately for your argument, the brute fact is that courts often say otherwise if the company puts on sufficient evidence of how agreement is indicated and of its records indicating that the individual did in fact agree. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 844-45 (2014) (explaining how this works in practice) [0]; Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. 2021) (same) [1]. Borrowing from what the late Charlie Munger famously said, you have to understand the incentives at work here: • In the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), Congress explicitly approved arbitration. • Over time, judges have come to realize that arbitration agreements reduce their workloads: For a judge, it's much easier to review and (usually) "confirm," that is, enforce, an award by a neutral arbitrator, who conducted a fair hearing and allowed the parties a reasonable opportunity to put on evidence, than it is to conduct a full-blown court case, including overseeing the pre-trial proceedings and managing the complexities of a jury trial. • Cutting the courts' workload even further: Under the FAA, a party that loses an arbitration has very limited grounds for appeal — the Supreme Court has said, in effect, you bargained for an arbitrator's decision in lieu of being able to go to court, so that's what you get. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2068 (2013) [2] (California and Texas allow expanded grounds of appeal if the parties so agree, but consumer arbitration provisions seldom include such agreements.) • Another incentive: Because of the limited grounds of appeal of an arbitration award, a trial judge who merely confirms an arbitration award is less likely to be reversed by an appellate court than if the trial judge conducted a full-blown court case. That's significant because as a general proposition, trial judges are not fond of being reversed by appellate courts. The above is adapted from the course materials (being revised) for the Contract Drafting course I teach for third-year law students. [3] [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7516877252978473256 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=751687725297847... [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6173244541031839144 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=617324454103183... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12985390297990950310 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=129853902979909... [3] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Drafting-2021-08-21.html#arb-cls https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...
justinclift 3y ago
The domain "rokuclassaction.org" (and .net) don't seem to be registered yet. This ToS change sounds like a gift to some lawyers if there are enough people patient and willing. ;)
jzb 3y ago
This is garbage. I have several Roku devices and it’s ridiculous they can change the ToS years later on something I already own. Not to mention, how can it this be enforceable? Roku has no way to prove who clicked the acceptance - could be the owner, or their impatient toddler who wants to watch Blues Clues, or a guest in the house.

105 points by rurp 3y ago

I have a couple Roku products and really liked having an alternative to Apple/Google duopoly and isn't the TV manufacturer. Unfortunately, Roku is under the same short-term profit maximization pressure as everyone else. I rarely turn on a TV anymore and consume media (primarily Netflix and Amazon) on my laptop from websites viewed in Firefox.

cyanydeez 3y ago
even if they weren't greedy assholes, specialized television is simply not a must have device and they're definitely needing to secure a cash flow. but that's because it's a lightbulb problem. I've been using the same android Nebula pico laser projector for almost a decade. I have YouTube and any other app service if I choose. it's all I need for, essentially, ever.
FireBeyond 3y ago
I know Plex isn't to everyone's cup of tea (I've created a Jellyfin VM, but haven't tweaked it to direct play most of my content), but since it got an Apple TV client, I've rarely turned on my Roku (I have an Ultra 4 in the entertainment center, and a Streambar in both my office and the guest bedroom).
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  I am currently running plex as unraid docker. I keep wondering if plex one day will bow to the same pressure and start making it unusable for my purposes. Still, now that I have everything running mostly the way I want, I don't want to spend a weekend tweaking stuff. Is jellyfin an easy move?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - WXLCKNO 3y ago
    I think for Plex it's only a matter of time. I run a dedicated server with overseer/radarr/sonarr and a bunch of other arrs and utilities and I love it. As time goes on they keep adding social features no one wants and it feels like at some point they'll make a decision that fucks it up.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      I just have a bunch of video files on an NFS share. No need for all these 3rd party software packages. I’m counting on Linux’s nfs subsystem not adding social features, chat, or other terrible features.
  - biomcgary 3y ago
    I ran Plex a decade ago, but the commercial direction that the project took scared me off when setting up a new media server a couple years ago. I run Jellyfin for all my local content. Not too difficult to set up and maintenance in minimal. The biggest thing is having files named in the format that is recognized. The built it workflow for manually updating the media ID is decent, but takes a bit of time when a lot of content is involved.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Related: Roku's Ultimatum: Surrender Jury Trial Rights or Lose Access to Your TVs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39585607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39585607

pempem 3y ago
It is a continuing trend to push arbitration. Go to the dentist? Sign an arbitration clause. Don't sign it? Can't see that dentist (I went to four) Bid on a house! Somewhere between 2020 and 2024 they've added an arbitration clause to the template here in CA. This is slightly different because you owned the hardware but only slightly. Source: https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-subject-to-forced-arbitration/ https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-... https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ Consumers cannot sue for negligence, defective products, or scams. Just by buying a product or service, consumers can lose their right to hold a company accountable. Even if a retirement account disappears, a home is dangerous and defective, or a loved one suffers harm in a nursing home, a forced arbitration clause means there is no right to take the company responsible to court. Arbitration is a private system without a judge, jury, or a right to an appeal. Arbitrators aren't required to take the law and legal precedent into account in making their decisions. There is no appeal or public review of decisions to ensure the arbitrator got it right. Stanford B school on why its bad for consumers: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio...
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  And the Supreme Court even struck down California's law banning forced arbitration.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  dentistry is one of those specialty that private equity is gobbling up.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago

How do they verify the person hitting "agree" is legally able to consent?

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Or that anyone actually pressed agree, let alone the owner. No simple computer action like that can actually be proven to have been done by any particular person, or any person at all vs say soda spill or a kid or a dog or a fall or I was changing the batteries in the other room not even looking at the screen etc etc. There's no way this holds up to the slightest challenge, but they probably won't have to face any challenge because who's going to do it? The math doesn't work for anyone and the legal system doesn't provide any allowance for "it's just harmful to society as a whole to allow this behavior".
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > No simple computer action like that can actually be proven to have been done by any particular person, or any person at all vs say soda spill or a kid or a dog or a fall or I was changing the batteries in the other room not even looking at the screen etc etc. Unfortunately for your argument, the brute fact is that courts often say otherwise if the company puts on sufficient evidence of how agreement is indicated and of its records indicating that the individual did in fact agree. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc., 232 Cal. App. 4th 836, 844-45 (2014) (explaining how this works in practice) [0]; Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. 2021) (same) [1]. Borrowing from what the late Charlie Munger famously said, you have to understand the incentives at work here: • In the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), Congress explicitly approved arbitration. • Over time, judges have come to realize that arbitration agreements reduce their workloads: For a judge, it's much easier to review and (usually) "confirm," that is, enforce, an award by a neutral arbitrator, who conducted a fair hearing and allowed the parties a reasonable opportunity to put on evidence, than it is to conduct a full-blown court case, including overseeing the pre-trial proceedings and managing the complexities of a jury trial. • Cutting the courts' workload even further: Under the FAA, a party that loses an arbitration has very limited grounds for appeal — the Supreme Court has said, in effect, you bargained for an arbitrator's decision in lieu of being able to go to court, so that's what you get. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2068 (2013) [2] (California and Texas allow expanded grounds of appeal if the parties so agree, but consumer arbitration provisions seldom include such agreements.) • Another incentive: Because of the limited grounds of appeal of an arbitration award, a trial judge who merely confirms an arbitration award is less likely to be reversed by an appellate court than if the trial judge conducted a full-blown court case. That's significant because as a general proposition, trial judges are not fond of being reversed by appellate courts. The above is adapted from the course materials (being revised) for the Contract Drafting course I teach for third-year law students. [3] [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7516877252978473256 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=751687725297847... [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6173244541031839144 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=617324454103183... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12985390297990950310 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=129853902979909... [3] https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Drafting-2021-08-21.html#arb-cls https://toedtclassnotes.site44.com/Notes-on-Contract-Draftin...

justinclift 3y ago

The domain "rokuclassaction.org" (and .net) don't seem to be registered yet. This ToS change sounds like a gift to some lawyers if there are enough people patient and willing. ;)

jzb 3y ago

This is garbage. I have several Roku devices and it’s ridiculous they can change the ToS years later on something I already own. Not to mention, how can it this be enforceable? Roku has no way to prove who clicked the acceptance - could be the owner, or their impatient toddler who wants to watch Blues Clues, or a guest in the house.