5 ms·

Texas court blocks Samsung from tracking TV viewing, then vacates order

111 points by speckx 10mo ago

JadeNB 10mo ago
You might want to find out why the order was immediately vacated, but you, or at least I, will not do so by reading the article: > One day after granting the TRO, the same judge ruled that it should not remain in effect and vacated the order. > “The Court finds, sua sponte, that the [TRO obtained by the State of Texas against Samsung] should be set aside,” the judge wrote in the order. "ruled that it should not remain in effect" links to https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-order-vacating-signed-tro/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-or..., but my desire to understand what's going on does not yet extend to reading the order.
- tadfisher 10mo ago
  "sua sponte" means "of the court's own volition", there is no reason given in the order to vacate.
  - ronsor 10mo ago
    The obvious reason is that Samsung's check finally cleared.
    - mindslight 10mo ago
      It's the routine fascist shakedown playbook at this point: 1. Make some big noise and token action about an issue that has been festering for decades, while their own party has been the primary opposition to any kind of substantive lasting reform (eg US GDPR) 2. Rally the useful idiots to rally around the cause of widely-desired reform, backfitting all the ideals behind the issue as if fascists have any appreciation for lofty ideals 3. Let the target company marinate and roast under the pressure until they capitulate and send a bribe and/or other tribute 4. Drop the token action after the attention spans of their useful idiots have expired and they've moved on to the next spectacle 5. If the issue comes to a head again, the useful idiots blame the "libuhruls" rather than having an ounce of self-awareness to realize their own leaders sandbagged and sold them out
    - BLKNSLVR 10mo ago
      My suspicion is that Ken Paxton thought Samsung was Chinese, and soon after the court action was submitted found out they were actually South Korean (or at least 'not Chinese').
  - SoftTalker 10mo ago
    In such cases, is it normal for there to be no reason or elaboration on why the order was vacated?
    - treetalker 10mo ago
      Fairly typical in state courts, where trial-level judges are generally left to do what they please and often give little if any rationale. In federal courts, judges generally explain themselves (sometimes they are required to) en route to doing what they please.
- observationist 10mo ago
  It's likely that they set some conditions and said "if you meet these conditions, we'll vacate the order" - probably some sort of compliance with Texas regulations governing what can and can't and should and shouldn't be tracked, and Samsung technically complied? Hard to find the details.
- DannyBee 10mo ago
  This is the TRO order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/TRO_0.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked. Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing: "The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest." Certainly the DTPA (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC.17&artSec= https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC...) authorizes temporary restraining orders, but if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it that explicitly overrides or replaces the typical TRO standards. A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure. There are other issues with the TRO
Cornbilly 10mo ago
This looks like it was just political theater. Par for the course for Ken Paxton, one of the most blatantly corrupt politicians in the US.
- platevoltage 10mo ago
  It truly is unbelievable how out in the open corrupt he is, and last time I checked, he is the front runner for the US Senate in Texas.
  - tstrimple 10mo ago
    Republicans have quite a few of these sorts of folks. See Rick Scott rewarded with multiple elections to office after leading the largest medicare fraud settlement in our nations history. Republicans are convinced government doesn't work and try their best to put the people in office to prove it.
zaptheimpaler 10mo ago
Seems like that temporary order was set to expire Jan 19th anyways, and there is a hearing for Samsung scheduled tomorrow. So there's still some hope..
beloch 10mo ago
Don't give your "smart" TV internet access. It's that simple. Samsung's chicanery taught me this, but other manufacturers are no better. Those TV apps may seem nice, but they can be run on hardware you have more control over. I'd recommend only buying "dumb" TV's, but they've become increasingly rare and expensive. Less costs more!
- doublerabbit 10mo ago
  > Don't give your "smart" TV internet access. It's that simple. For the tech users yes, simple. But for the non-technical user it's not. The ISP given router don't normally provide the options for such. Nor would my mother, father, brother, sister even know about the slightest about networking, isolating networks.
  - wtallis 10mo ago
    The very simple solution that would work in practice is: don't give your TV your WiFi password.
    - doublerabbit 10mo ago
      Even simpler would be not to own a TV. Sky TV the typical UK household satellite service now comes via your ISP as IPTV rather than dish. WiFi unfortunately then becomes the requirement.
      - nickthegreek 10mo ago
        Hooking up a streaming box is incredibly easy.
      - kelseyfrog 10mo ago
        TV-free here for about 6 years. I'd recommend it. It takes some getting used to, but after acclimating, the presence of TVs has become annoying. I'm not sure why I'd want to lose myself for an hour or two to it when there's more fulfilling things in the world.
pabs3 10mo ago
One should never use the vendor software shipped on a device, always replace it with a FOSS distro that respects your privacy. Hopefully the Vizio lawsuit that is going to trial soon will help make that more possible. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html Two recent LWN articles about that: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052842/52c45fb8bcc3fade/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052842/52c45fb8bcc3fade/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052734/5903e175673caeef/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052734/5903e175673caeef/
- shakna 10mo ago
  The tentative ruling in that case isn't overly hopeful, with issues 2 & 3 probably going to be dismissed.
  - pabs3 10mo ago
    SFC say that was a ruling on something they didn't even ask for: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelevant-ruling/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelev... https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-ruling-in-favor-of-sfc/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-r...

111 points by speckx 10mo ago

JadeNB 10mo ago

You might want to find out why the order was immediately vacated, but you, or at least I, will not do so by reading the article: > One day after granting the TRO, the same judge ruled that it should not remain in effect and vacated the order. > “The Court finds, sua sponte, that the [TRO obtained by the State of Texas against Samsung] should be set aside,” the judge wrote in the order. "ruled that it should not remain in effect" links to https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-order-vacating-signed-tro/ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26462588-20260106-or..., but my desire to understand what's going on does not yet extend to reading the order.

tadfisher 10mo ago
"sua sponte" means "of the court's own volition", there is no reason given in the order to vacate.
- ronsor 10mo ago
  The obvious reason is that Samsung's check finally cleared.
  - mindslight 10mo ago
    It's the routine fascist shakedown playbook at this point: 1. Make some big noise and token action about an issue that has been festering for decades, while their own party has been the primary opposition to any kind of substantive lasting reform (eg US GDPR) 2. Rally the useful idiots to rally around the cause of widely-desired reform, backfitting all the ideals behind the issue as if fascists have any appreciation for lofty ideals 3. Let the target company marinate and roast under the pressure until they capitulate and send a bribe and/or other tribute 4. Drop the token action after the attention spans of their useful idiots have expired and they've moved on to the next spectacle 5. If the issue comes to a head again, the useful idiots blame the "libuhruls" rather than having an ounce of self-awareness to realize their own leaders sandbagged and sold them out
  - BLKNSLVR 10mo ago
    My suspicion is that Ken Paxton thought Samsung was Chinese, and soon after the court action was submitted found out they were actually South Korean (or at least 'not Chinese').
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  In such cases, is it normal for there to be no reason or elaboration on why the order was vacated?
  - treetalker 10mo ago
    Fairly typical in state courts, where trial-level judges are generally left to do what they please and often give little if any rationale. In federal courts, judges generally explain themselves (sometimes they are required to) en route to doing what they please.
observationist 10mo ago
It's likely that they set some conditions and said "if you meet these conditions, we'll vacate the order" - probably some sort of compliance with Texas regulations governing what can and can't and should and shouldn't be tracked, and Samsung technically complied? Hard to find the details.
DannyBee 10mo ago
This is the TRO order: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/TRO_0.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... There is no written decision on the vacating other than what you already linked. Reading the TRO, a lot jumps out at me. To pick a single thing: "The Court HOLDS that because the State seeks injunctive relief pursuant to an authorized statute, which supersedes the common law, it need not prove immediate and irreparable injury, nor does the Court have to balance the equities when the State litigates in the public interest." Certainly the DTPA (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC.17&artSec= https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?tab=1&code=BC&chapter=BC...) authorizes temporary restraining orders, but if you read it carefully, there is nothing in it that explicitly overrides or replaces the typical TRO standards. A quick search doesn't show me that texas courts have interpreted it to do so anyway, but maybe they have - i'm not familiar enough with texas law to say for sure. There are other issues with the TRO

Cornbilly 10mo ago

This looks like it was just political theater. Par for the course for Ken Paxton, one of the most blatantly corrupt politicians in the US.

platevoltage 10mo ago
It truly is unbelievable how out in the open corrupt he is, and last time I checked, he is the front runner for the US Senate in Texas.
- tstrimple 10mo ago
  Republicans have quite a few of these sorts of folks. See Rick Scott rewarded with multiple elections to office after leading the largest medicare fraud settlement in our nations history. Republicans are convinced government doesn't work and try their best to put the people in office to prove it.

zaptheimpaler 10mo ago

Seems like that temporary order was set to expire Jan 19th anyways, and there is a hearing for Samsung scheduled tomorrow. So there's still some hope..

beloch 10mo ago

Don't give your "smart" TV internet access. It's that simple. Samsung's chicanery taught me this, but other manufacturers are no better. Those TV apps may seem nice, but they can be run on hardware you have more control over. I'd recommend only buying "dumb" TV's, but they've become increasingly rare and expensive. Less costs more!

doublerabbit 10mo ago
> Don't give your "smart" TV internet access. It's that simple. For the tech users yes, simple. But for the non-technical user it's not. The ISP given router don't normally provide the options for such. Nor would my mother, father, brother, sister even know about the slightest about networking, isolating networks.
- wtallis 10mo ago
  The very simple solution that would work in practice is: don't give your TV your WiFi password.
  - doublerabbit 10mo ago
    Even simpler would be not to own a TV. Sky TV the typical UK household satellite service now comes via your ISP as IPTV rather than dish. WiFi unfortunately then becomes the requirement.
    - nickthegreek 10mo ago
      Hooking up a streaming box is incredibly easy.
    - kelseyfrog 10mo ago
      TV-free here for about 6 years. I'd recommend it. It takes some getting used to, but after acclimating, the presence of TVs has become annoying. I'm not sure why I'd want to lose myself for an hour or two to it when there's more fulfilling things in the world.

pabs3 10mo ago

One should never use the vendor software shipped on a device, always replace it with a FOSS distro that respects your privacy. Hopefully the Vizio lawsuit that is going to trial soon will help make that more possible. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html Two recent LWN articles about that: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052842/52c45fb8bcc3fade/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052842/52c45fb8bcc3fade/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052734/5903e175673caeef/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1052734/5903e175673caeef/

shakna 10mo ago
The tentative ruling in that case isn't overly hopeful, with issues 2 & 3 probably going to be dismissed.
- pabs3 10mo ago
  SFC say that was a ruling on something they didn't even ask for: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelevant-ruling/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelev... https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-ruling-in-favor-of-sfc/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/04/tentative-vizio-r...