Just an FYI, although they aren’t physical products like this Roku, many apps and digital services have added the very same binding arbitration clauses recently.

The McDonald’s app for one. I ended up deleting the app after it tried to force me into binding arbitration and I didn’t want to go through to opt-out process for marginally cheaper, shitty food, so I just deleted the app altogether and haven’t eaten there since November.

Watch out for it if you drive for doordash or ubereats as well. I opted out of both, although they claimed you couldn’t opt out in an new contract when you didn’t before (a bunch of BS, if the current contract you are about to sign says it supercedes all others, you can’t make the lack of an opt-out on a previous contract hold up).

On-going services might make sense for these shitty enough clauses, but to be strong armed into it for physical product you bought free and clear … Disgusting.

It’s like all these companies are locking themselves down to minimize legal exposure because they know that their services and products are getting more awful or something.

I got this yesterday, as well. There’s no way this could hold up legally, right? Like my 7 year old could easily just click through that, no way this is a legally binding contract to forfeit jury rights and right to sue.

…right?

Shit like this is why my LG C1 is restricted to LAN access only in my router (local network for automation purposes) and can’t communicate with the internet.

Here in Brazil, EULAs (they are called adhesion contracts here) can only deal with the way service is provided and cannot limit consumer rights in any way. Even if the contract has these types of clauses, they are considered void by default.

These types of things never fly here.

These are fun, Australians can’t waive any of their rights, including consumer rights and rights to access the courts.

I wonder why Roku make you sign this agreement out of the blue. I think they’re about to drop either an acquisition announcement, or news they were hacked.

I of course signed it like an idiot. I hate this cyberpunk present.

Once again, Stallman was right. (Also Corey Doctorow)

I’m really surprised about this. Amazon got called on their arbitration clause so much that they removed it because it was so expensive.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-faced-75-000-arbitration-demands-now-it-says-fine-sue-us-11622547000

Roku is practically asking for people to do the same to them. They could even do it about this clause, IMO. (I am not a lawyer.) This is a really dumb clause to have these days.

I thought I linked to my blog post about it, but it just used the image

Roku’s Ultimatum: Surrender Jury Trial Rights or Lose Access to Your TVs

Sections 1(F) and 1(L) seem like the only ways out/around of this. (IANAL; the bolding emphasis was done by me.)

F. Small Claims. You or Roku may pursue any Claim, except IP Claims, in a small-claims court instead of through arbitration if (i) the Claim meets the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims court and (ii) the small claims court does not permit class or similar representative actions or relief.

L. 30-Day Right to Opt Out. You have the right to opt out of arbitration by sending written notice of your decision to opt out to the following address by mail: General Counsel, Roku Inc., 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112 within 30 days of you first becoming subject to these Dispute Resolution Terms. Such notice must include the name of each person opting out and contact information for each such person, the specific product models, software, or services used that are at issue, the email address that you used to set up your Roku account (if you have one), and, if applicable, a copy of your purchase receipt. For clarity, opt-out notices submitted via any method other than mail (including email) will not be effective. If you send timely written notice containing the required information in accordance with this Section 1(L), then neither party will be required to arbitrate the Claims between them.

Any lawyers out there who can speak towards the three bolded parts?

I am not a lawyer, but would such a contract be enforceable? To my untrained eye this has a lot of similarity to the unenforceable NDAs I keep on hearing about when people try to bully others into being quiet about crimes.

The bigger thing here is no class arbitration or other representative proceeding. A lot of law firms do arbitration now against companies either with class arbitration or just thousands of individual arbitrations filed en masse. I wonder if this protects them from even the latter approach? It would be shitty if it forced you to do all the legwork on the arbitration yourself.

In any case I get this is happening now and why it’s such a huge ultimatum is they know they’re about to get hit with a ton of Video Privacy Protection Act suits. Turns out in the late 80s the US made video service providers that share video watching/rental/purchase history open to actual damages of $2500. So in the last year or two a ton of law firms have started filing class actions and arbitrations against all the streaming services and platforms.

Smart TV’s are stupid scams. I quit watching the big screens in 2018. My phone is larger, at the distance I am comfortable laying down, than the 72in screen on the wall in front of me right now in my family’s living room. In the USA, without LUFS regulations, I’m not interested in watching any content embedded in corporate media advertising streams. (Tom Scott LUFS YT, Wikipedia: LUFS)

“Dumb” TV + PC + 🏴‍☠️. life is good

https://community.roku.com/t5/Community-discussions/Roku-disables-player-with-attempt-to-coerce-arbitration-agreement/td-p/950649