this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
700 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
4136 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheRaven@lemmy.ca 184 points 8 months ago (12 children)

The devices those users paid for? That should be illegal.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 180 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 26 points 8 months 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.

[–] fragnoli@lemmy.one 30 points 8 months 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.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 34 points 8 months ago

You didn’t consent and your child can’t.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months 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?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)