See title - very frustrating. There is no way to continue to use the TV without agreeing to the terms. I couldn’t use different inputs, or even go to settings from the home screen and disconnect from the internet to disable their services. If I don’t agree to their terms, then I don’t get access to their new products. That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.

Anyway, the new terms are about waiving your right to a class action lawsuit. It’s weird to me because I’d never considered filing a class action lawsuit against Roku until this. They shouldn’t be able to hold my physical device hostage until I agree to new terms that I didn’t agree at the time of purchase or initial setup.

I wish Roku TVs weren’t cheap walmart brand sh*t. Someone with some actual money might sue them and sort this out…

EDIT: Shout out to @testfactor@lemmy.world for recommending the brand “Sceptre” when buying my next (dumb) TV.

EDIT2: Shout out to @0110010001100010@lemmy.world for recommending LG smart TVs as a dumb-TV stand in. They apparently do require an agreement at startup, which is certainly NOT ideal, but the setup can be completed without an internet connection and it remembers input selection on powerup. So, once you have it setup, you’re good to rock and roll.

  • ofcourse@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I reached out to Roku support regarding this. The rep told me “why are you complaining. You are the only one.” He then disconnected the chat. I’ve reached out to my state’s AG to report this. No action so far but waiting. If there are enough complaints, that might help move the needle.

    What Roku is doing should be completely illegal - bricking the product after purchasing it for full price if you don’t agree to waiving your rights.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Report Roku to the FBI for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by hacking into and sabotaging your property.

    That’s a sincere suggestion, by the way. This shit should literally be a crime.

    • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, that would definitely not go anywhere. Roku isn’t hacking into their device. OP probably bought a Roku Smart TV for like $75 (the cost is subsidized by Roku, hence why it’s so cheap) and is now complaining about it. It’s like buying an Amazon FireTV and then complaining about Amazon having control over the TV.

      Edit: am I saying it’s right? No, but sometimes it pays to read the EULA. If you’re getting something for cheap, there’s probably a reason for it.

      • stellargmite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Non American here, and also not a lawyer, but I’m curious what the correlation is between consumer rights (or lack of) and the relative cost of the product. This is somewhat different to buying a cheaply manufactured product and it unsurprisingly falling to bits - though in many jurisdictions there are even basic rights for that situation, the price is irrelevent. Someone elsewhere in chat has suggested suing in small claims for the cost of the product, due to Roku intentionally bricking their own product unless the rightful owner (is the purchaser even the owner?) agrees to certain terms, even though OP purchased it in good faith. If a straight up refund is not available during a straight forward opt OUT option, we have a very unfair situation for the rightful owner of this product. Needless to say opting out should be as straight forward as opting in. Your suggestions is that if a product is of or below a certain price you must bend over and gratefully accept the corporation you paid money to, then inserting anything they like up your rear end. In my opinion your thesis is not price based as this is a common practice unfortunately in the consumer (and enterprise for that matter) tech industry where we have had shiny brand even expensive products initially sensitively torpedoed up our various orifices, only for brand HQ weeks later to press a button which flicks open hidden blades in the torpedo. No one wants or deserves this. The question is what recourse is there in OP’s jurisdiction.

        I may be misunderstanding you if actually you mean that any tech corp can do such a thing at any time that you have paid for. In which case we agree. But it’s far from ideal and shouldn’t be accepted.

        • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it’s right for them to do this, it’s a shitty practice and I’d definitely be pissed off. What I’m saying is there’s probably a clause in the EULA/TOS that pretty much says Roku has control over the function of the TV and either you accept those terms or you don’t use the TV. The price comparison was just pointing out the difference in experience between getting a $50-75 Amazon Fire tablet vs a $700 Samsung Galaxy tablet. The former is going to have ads all over it and Amazon controls it essentially, they tell you this, meanwhile the Galaxy tablet most likely has no advertising or additional strong-arming since you’re paying a lot more for it. The company is always out to get their income one way or another is simply the point I was making.

          There is practically zero consumer protection in the US (assuming OP is from the US).

            • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No problem, this is essentially the Human Cent-iPad South Park episode playing out in real life… Obviously without the shit eating and mouth to ass sewing 😂

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t do this. This just creates more work for the FBI and you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin. That is just wasting public resources.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        you know that report is going straight into the rubbish bin.

        In that case, you should additionally complain to your Congressperson that the FBI isn’t doing their goddamn job.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, what’s more productive is writing that this should be a crime. It’s currently not.

          If you think otherwise, let’s pretend you’re a prosecutor. Which offence do you accuse them of committing (use a legal citation to refer to a specific section), list out each of the elements of that offence and explain why you believe each of them is satisfied.

      • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “We can’t solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them.”

        Crime is crime dude.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the reasons so-called “smart” TVs are so much cheaper is because they are data-mining you.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Only if you connect them to the Internet. I’ve got an LG TV and I have never connected it to a network. But yeah, most of the Roku style TV’s are like that from what I can tell. They offer streaming services natively to entice people to connect them. TBH Samsung has been doing this for like decades.

      • XTornado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Until they add their own mobile data connection so it transfers their analytics.

        • slumberlust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No need, just broadcast a local wifi signal and piggy back on your neighbors tv connection!

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Sucks this happened to you. If it is still under warranty, you should return it for a replacement or store credit. Complain that it has ceased to function.

    A good set of advice is to never connect your TV to the internet. A cheap streaming box or HTPC does the same function, and doesn’t open you up to issues like this. Your TV is also almost certainly selling your viewing data if you have it connected to the internet.

    • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      Almost certainly - but that is what I agreed to when I bought the TV.

      Like I said in the post, I’d much prefer dumb TVs, but they I can’t really find them anymore. Best I can do is buy a smart TV that’d won’t let you do anything (including selecting inputs) until you connect it to the internet, agree to their horrible anti-consumer licensing agreement. Only then to open up a different smart device product that will still steal my data and force me to give up my legal right to a class action? The current system is scam.

      Do you have any recommendations for dumb TVs?

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        As someone in pro AV, here’s my recommendation for a dumb TV: A smart TV that you never connect to your wifi.

        All that bloatware shit they install is what makes it cheap. At my job I can buy commercial displays (no crapware) at cost and it’s still cheaper to buy a consumer one.

        Unless IP control is absolutely mandatory for you, it’s cheaper and easier to go consumer for displays

        • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’m pretty sure that you cannot use a roku-enabled device for any purpose until you agree to their terms of service, which just puts me back into the same boat.

          Do you have any recommendations for actual dumb TVs?

            • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 years ago

              We found an answer! Thank you!

              I’ve been searching online between comment responses looking for actually useful recommendations. It looks like Sceptre or LG are going to be good starting points. Between the two website, I’m leaning pretty heavily towards the Sceptre. I’m excited to here more from the person posting about the professional/commercial AV displays.

          • clayh@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            Any TV that you just don’t connect to the internet at all, ever.

            • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 years ago

              Hmm, yes, I agree! Totally agree on this. No argument. I’m curious though - what TV would that be? What TV can someone buy today that doesn’t require an initial setup process that requires an agreement to certain terms and conditions prior to use?

              Not trying to be hostile towards you in particular. I’m feeling frustrated with this answer because I am seeing it a lot (both online and in online searches right now), but I’m having some difficulty finding it actually useful advice. Many devices are setup from the factory to not allow use until agreeing to certain terms and conditions that must be agreed to before using the TV. I need to know which TVs - if any - do not require this. It is surprisingly difficult! I feel frustrated with this answer because it feels reductive & dismissive of the actual problem.

              Again, nothing against you in particular. I’m just frustrated with this - seemingly reasonable but not actually applicable based on what I have been able to research online so far - answer.

              • red_rising@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                I just bought a Roku smart TV and the first time I powered it on, it asked if I wanted to enable smart features by connecting to the Internet. I said no and it functions like a dumb TV now. There are a couple brands that still make dumb TVs but they are all fairly small and not great quality. Much better off researching which smart TVs can be easily disabled.

                • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  This is the point that I’ve been stuck on. There doesn’t seem to be clear, easily available, documentation on which models those are. However, I have been able to find many ramble-ly “old man yells at cloud” forum & social media posts (You know, like this one!) when a model doesn’t allow it.

              • rtxn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Show me one piece of technology in your life that didn’t come with T&C that put you at a disadvantage against the manufacturer, I’ll show you ten fairies, a unicorn, and the herald of darkness.

                My grandmother has a Philips dumb TV that doesn’t have any network connectivity and it still showed a click-through T&C. If you can’t get something like that in your region, ship from the EU, they’re still sold here.

              • glimse@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Samsung, Sony, and LG all let you skip connecting to there Internet. I prefer Sony TVs because Samsung has stupid VESA mounting options but they’re all good

      • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ve had LGs for years (just got a new C3 OLED) and they don’t require internet access to function. My current OLED isn’t connected and works perfectly fine. I use a standalone Roku for streaming.

        • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think that I’m about to sold on LG TVs. Do you need to agree to any terms of service for initial setup? Additionally, do you have to navigate menus on startup to get to the streaming device? If so, that is ok, but very annoying if I can’t set it up to start on a particular input on power up.

          • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            I did have to agree to the terms during setup. You do NOT have to navigate menus on startup. It remembers the last input and defaults there. You can then easily change the input via the remote if needed.

              • 🐍🩶🐢@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They also have a list of items you can and cannot agree to, instead of just 1. So agree to 1, and say no to the rest sort of deal. You can also set the TV to non-US and get a little less bullshit.

            • bleistift2@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It remembers the last input and defaults there.

              It never occurred to me that TVs might not do that.

          • zod000@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            LG have started sending some bullshit major updates to both of my TVs recently. The whole “home” interface is now sluggish and full of video heavy garbage I don’t want to see. They are still better than some smart platforms (looking at you Vizio, Samsung, and Roku), but I am far less pleased with them than I used to be.

        • Veticia@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That would be a good idea if there wasn’t a 100x difference in price for something actually tv size big.

  • VodkaSolution @feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose you’re in the US so I don’t know if my answer fits but if the terms are against the law they are simply void: as in if you have a reason for a class action, no terms or contract can take it away from you

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most likely the terms say that you agree to go through individual binding arbitration rather than a lawsuit which the courts have found to be legal and enforceable. It’s really shitty and has become corporations favorite weapon to use against people, particularly because the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged. Contractually mandated arbitration really needs to be invalidated. Arbitration is a fine alternative if both parties want to go that route but it should never be forced on someone, particularly because of some bullshit EULA.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        afaik even those terms would be unenforcable if you can only see the TOS after buying the product, which would be the case here.

        • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think so. I think in that case you would have to decline the terms and not use the thing. You would be entitled to compensation for the cost of whatever it was, like you can return it to the manufacturer or vendor somehow.

        • gian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In EU they are unenforcable because they are illegal.

  • Gmork@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep. I got hit with this this morning when I turned on my TV before heading work.

    I thought to myself ‘‘Well… I hadn’t planned on suing you but now I’m not so sure. Lol’’

    Yeah. This is complete BS and has me looking at computer monitors for a suitable replacement. I went ahead and agreed to their terms and my TV still works great but when it comes time to replace it, I’ll be damned if I get another Smart TV.

  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    IANAL, and not that it really makes this bullshit any better but…

    It’s unlikely that agreeing to terms of service that claim you waive rights to any class action lawsuit would actually hold up as legally binding in court. Many of these agreements aren’t reply binding are already legally gray… Plus, universally vaguely signing your legal rights away in any contract doesn’t hold any water either.

    I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

    • DaleGribble88@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      IANAL either, but I’m pretty sure you are correct. I put it in another comment somewhere, but I’m more upset about not being given a choice to refuse the change rather than the actual change itself. I don’t mind signing the waiver at amusement parks, or to buy a car with no warranty. I just want to know what I’m agreeing to, and I don’t like folks pulling the rug out from under me or changing the deal.

      The situation feels like if I were to drop out of college, I would be given electroshocks until I’d forgotten anything learned in class.

      • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, I totally agree with you, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s bullshit to switch terms. And also bullshit to write terms that just say “if we fuck you over, you can’t do anything about it”.

        I just wanted to point out that the legality of it probably wouldn’t hold any actual water so don’t be totally paranoid about it and take it with a grain of salt. For anyone who’s a little more torn.

        But yeah, Idk that I’d keep the device at that point either.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I highly doubt you’d actually lose any rights to a check box that’s bound to “you can’t ever sue us”.

      Could the agreement not force OP to use arbitration if they wanted to sue, making it economically infeasible to do so themselves?

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much all arbitration clauses require the manufacturer to pay for the arbitration. That’s the consideration offered by the manufacturer to get the customer to waive their rights to sue.

        It’s actuaoworked out well for me I the past, because once you start going down the arbitration path, they’re more likely to just give you what you want since that’ll be cheaper than the arbiter in the end win or lose.

        • Raxiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And as Elon found out, mandatory arbitration clauses can come back to bite you, like when a large number of claims have to be paid for separately all at once and can’t be consolidated to save costs.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like the waivers at skihills etc. Lots of stuff not legal, but it gives then deleting to waste your time and money on and the can afford the lawyers better than you can

  • neomachino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t see how this could be legal at all and how any of those terms could be applicable. My 2 year old found the remote today and he loves buttons, so naturally he pushed every button on there. I thought nothing of it but saw something pop up and then disappear, I assumed it was an error or something from the button mashing, but I guess my 2 year old agreed to rokus new TOS.

  • recapitated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would like to see legislation that forces optional recalls or refunds whenever TOS updates modify the usability and viability of a product.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    That sucks, but fine - I don’t use their services except for the TV itself, and honestly, I’d rather by a dumb TV with a streaming box anyway, but I can’t find those anymore.

    Search for monitors, not televisions. For example, you can get an 48in and 55in OLEDs dumb monitors with multiple HDMI inputs.

    • Raxiel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just make sure they have audio out too (unless your source can drive a soundbar directly). I just got a new monitor that had built in speakers. They’re dog shit, and I didn’t plan on using them anyway, but I hadn’t appreciated how useful it was having a device that can decode the audio stream from HDMI or DP.
      I still have my old usb soundbar for the times I want a loudspeaker, but I can just leave my headphones plugged into the monitors jack and switch the output device on the computer.

  • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I like everyone saying “but this is surely illegal!” as if these corporations actually care. At least in the US, it really doesn’t matter what the law says at this point.

    Corporations will do what they want and the law will be modified to reflect that, this is the current status quo and it is going to take significant political action (specifically making rich people afraid again to piss the rest of us off too much) to make it change.

  • theangryseal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have a dumb 4k tv. It’s cheap, it won’t meet everyone’s needs, but I really really really don’t want a smart tv.

    It’s a Sceptre. Cheap enough that if it breaks it won’t break your heart to replace it.

    • recapitated@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny, I got a large Toshiba with fire TV because it was the cheapest option when I was looking, loaded with surveillance capitalism from Amazon.

      Regretted it immediately, I would pay double for a dumb tv next time.

      • theangryseal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        My tv is wonky as hell sometimes. I have to spray the volume button with contact cleaner from time to time or it turns itself up or down.

        It’s fine other than that though haha.