5 ms·
My kids have been watching TV, they must have accepted it on my behalf. They should have required the parental control pin to accept it.
by jayknight 3y ago
My kids have been watching TV, they must have accepted it on my behalf. They should have required the parental control pin to accept it.
- bee_rider 3y agoCan anyone who understands legal stuff explain this? As a layman Roku’s popup seemed wildly insufficient verification that the account owners were the ones accepting these TOS.
- penjelly 3y agonot legal, but yes theyll probably get sued for this.
- rco8786 3y agoNot an expert but have worked on similar stuff and there’s no specific controls that I know of around specifically verifying that the account owner sees these things, just that they’re made available and the account is notified.
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoThe whole point of having a quick, online opt-in and an elaborate "mail us a notarized letter" opt-out is to make it very easy to opt in. Why would they want to make it harder? They're already on dodgy legal ground, and the "enter your PIN" wouldn't make it much firmer. You're thinking like an engineer given the problem of "get people's consent" instead of like a businessman with the goal of "altering the deal."
- reaperman 3y agoSomeone else pointed out that they can’t even prove it wasnt a dog who agreed by chewing on the remote. Yet somehow these clicks are still considered to legally bind the owner.