Roku TV bricked until agreeing to new terms of service

Sounds like a good way to get a new tv and move away from roku. They're really piling on the ads lately and making their os really slow.

Inb4 it's ChatGPT like Air Canada.

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.

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.

Piss off. You're not even an American. Don't tell us what to do with our FBI.

"We can't solve your case until we solve all the murders first. All of them."

Crime is crime dude.

That’s creepy

This is disturbing. I wanted to know more so I googled it but I found nothing. Where did you hear this?

Do you have a source for Samsung connecting to the internet via other Samsung devices?

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

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.

Buy a really large computer monitor

Not for a dumb tv but I own a newer Vizio. I actually use it as a huge desktop monitor through HDMI. The actual tv itself has never been connected to the internet. You could connect a streaming stick (roku, amazon, google) if you wanted to. I stream everything from the net. Vizio has a horrible "free" streaming tv service that tracks you. But you can still use the actual tv in other ways if you don't connect it to the net. It will act as a dumb tv.
Until we have a federal privacy law that allows us to opt out of being tracked on every device, you have to "work around" the problems.

Look for computer monitors instead of a TV.

Dumb TVs are called "digital signage" now.

Computer monitors seem like one of the few options at this point.

Just never connect it to the internet, or (even better) set up a PiHole and block the TV’s telemetry requests. I say the PiHole is better because then you still get all of the benefits of a smart TV (like native streaming apps) without all of the horribly invasive data mining.

If you want the benefits of a smart TV without connecting it to the internet, then maybe a connected PC would be a better solution. Something like an Nvidia shield connected to the TV, while the TV remains offline. That way you can maintain control over the computer, instead of trying to control what the TV collects and sends.

Buy a smart one and never connect it to the internet.

I have a 4K Sceptre tv that doesn’t connect to the internet.

I mean, it’s cheap af and might not be for everyone. It works for me.

There really is no choice, you basically have to buy a smart TV.

However, even the Roku Smart TVs can be configured as plain old TVs. If you go through the initial setup wizard and just don't give it a network...you'll get a regular TV out of it.

I know that there are certain models out there that supposedly reach into your neighbor's wifi and stuff, and who knows, but that seems a little extreme....at least most TVs nowadays can be rendered non-networked and then you can use them the other way.

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

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

the arbitration companies are usually fairly friendly towards whatever corporation is being challenged being paid directly by the company they’re arbitrating for, and therefore have a direct financial incentive to rule in favor of the corporation.

FTFY. It’s way worse than just “being friendly” with corps. They’re on the corps’ payroll (indirectly, because the corp is paying for the arbitration,) and they know that if they continue to rule in the corps’ favor then the corp will continue calling them for future arbitration. There’s a tacit understanding between the arbiter and corporation, where if the arbiter favors the plaintiff then the arbiter won’t get called when the corporation goes to arbitration the next time.

Right it's unenforceable however it's plenty enforceable to poor people who can't afford the legal fees.

Unfortunately, if you did this, it would be the shop that sold you it that takes the hit, because you have to go to them to get the refund, not the original manufacturer.

Couldn't you just buy a new tv of a different brand from the same shop to offset the hit from the refund?

85% of its* features

Woah, you have money.....? Actual money to spend on wants instead of needs.

When I have a problem, I just throw a molotov cocktail and BOOM. Now I have a different problem.

BOOOOORRTLES

That's probably really cute and fun to think about. Unfortunately we don't live in a comic book universe.

IANAL either, but from my understanding of contract law, not only are terms waiving your rights not legal, a contract necessarily entails mutual agreement followed by an exchange of a thing of value. In this case, they are holding a thing that you own (which they made and designed to work in this manner no less) hostage until you agree.

I don't think that counts as an "exchange of a thing of value". There's no exchange there, so it doesn't even qualify as a contract. Even if they're supposedly adding features along with the update, if you didn't agree to the features being added then that can't be considered forming a contract either. Also it's not free agreement on your part, so it fails on a number of levels.

In fact this behaviour sounds like it's arguably illegal to me. It could even be the subject of a class action lawsuit. I imagine the courts would be especially unfavourable to the idea that they were doing this specifically to ask you to waive your right to do so.

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.

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.

At this point I just refuse to ever connect smart TVs to wifi, it's not worth it

It would be better to our them on blast on social media since that sometimes gets the companies attention to try and fix PR.

Works almost every time. I had a ticket with a vendor open at work for just about 3 months, and then only replies I'd gotten on the ticket was the "We've received your support request which we'll promptly ignore!" autoresponse upon opening, and then another auto-response a month later saying the ticket was being assigned to another department. I'd replied to the ticket ~20 times asking for updates in that time.

I finally got sick of essentially yelling into an empty room and called out the company, their marketing team, their support team, and their CEO on Twitter, making sure to @ each one of them in the message. I got a reply from their CEO and an actual human responded to the ticket less than an hour later.

It's shitty and a last resort, but it's generally very effective.

At this point, it's like they're trying to get everyone to pirate everything.

It’s just an exhausting uphill battle that never ends. I don’t have the time or resources to combat monied corporations.

Call your House of Representative member and tell them that.

Mine as well. :/

Commercial display TVs are dumb. They are TVs meant for store displays and lack "smart" functionality.

monitors are usually a different aspect ratio to a TV

What? Aren't like 90% of monitors and 99% of TVs 16:9? There are a few monitors that are 16:10, some extremely rare 5:4 and 4:3 and then there are the ultrawide monitors which are obviously a different aspect ratio but saying that monitors are "usually" a different aspect ratio is factually incorrect. If you're deciding between a 4K TV and 4K monitor, then there's no danger of accidentally buying something of different format.

You’ll need to buy TV tuner with HDMI to do that.

But honestly, I probably wouldn’t go the monitor route unless you were all in on streaming.

Hasn't worked like that in the US for a couple decades. I remember early 2000's there was a push to go digital and a lot of people with older TV's that didn't have coax or similar were given dongles by the government so they could make tv signals all digital. No more aerials on TVs.

https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2009/the-switch-from-analog-to-digital-tv/#:~:text=SUMMARY%3A On June 12%2C 2009,signals must be transmitted digitally.

Earlier you wrote,

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

And wrote that they should at least let you select an input without agreeing to new terms.

Now someone attempts to offer you a solution where you only need to agree to those original terms and get a separate streaming device like you asked for and you brush them off?

The situation with roku is unacceptable but please be reasonable with the people trying to help.

My friend, I'm trying to offer you a solution so you can still use your current TV at the very least. Your tv if useless right now, correct? Resetting it and not connecting it to the internet might allow that. And you could then hook up a separate streaming device to it.

I thought that was you goal?

I didn't know there were any smart TVs that weren't pieces of s*** anymore, so that's good to hear.

Personally, I've never had a problem finding a large monitor that fit my living room well.

I buy a separate Chromebook or similar $30 used laptop and run everything off of that through HDMI to the monitor.

Cheap and easy.

Ditto for my Samsung QLED. It’s fine as a dumb monitor. Don’t connect it to the internet, throw the remote in a drawer, and use CEC streaming boxes and game consoles to control it.

There's plenty available in larger sizes if you look for 'commercial display' instead, e.g.

• 50” 4K iiyama £419.88
• 65” 4K iiyama £911.90

Also you need to move on from 'as long as you don’t connect them to the internet'. It may have been true once, it isn't true anymore- see comments here about Roku TV including from OP and discussion on a recent Hacker news thread

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.

This is referring to the Roku built into many TVs. So you have no choice but to deal with it at least a little bit for switching between your HDMI/PC inputs. The reason this case is so bad is that it literally prevents you from using any input or device until you find the Roku remote that came with the TV and click accept. The TV is a "brick" until you do this.

not quite. here's one for ya

And be careful, a lot don't have built in speakers either. Don't just expect to get a TV out of a commercial display.

My man!

Can't 360 noscope my movies without 120 FPS.

It's also OLED

Well, i spent 30 seconds on google and found that. Shop around. The point is that monitors are essentially dumb tvs and solve the issue of manufacturers no longer selling dumb tvs as tvs.

Smart TVs are only bad if you do the dumb thing of connecting them to the internet.

I miss Dumb TVs, and Sceptre quality is too hit or miss to rely on them.

Why would a TV need an update? What's changed that would require updating to continue to display the signal it's getting?

I have a Vizio that isn't connected to the Internet and it's essentially a computer monitor for my htpc that I control.

If it ever forces me to update I'm getting rid of it.

My real concern is that in 10 years, my htpc loophole will be closed and they'll datamine me anyway and force me into subscriptions regardless.

Are you able to use the built-in airPlay/Chromecast, if it’s on your local network but not the internet and assuming you have a model with that?

Probably. We’re in the middle of a wave of “increased monetization” of streaming. We mostly see more ads, but more tracking helps justify a higher price for ads.

Maybe it’s all Google’s fault 😉. Now that Chrome finally implemented features to block tracking cookies, there’s a potential shift in where advertising dollars are spent. What soulless greedy corporate huckster wouldn’t be salivating at that opportunity?

You need your original purchase receipt to opt out? I hope that’s not legal. I wonder if roku could be subject to a lawsuit over this…

IANAL, but the answer to your question would depend on the bolded part of the clause ('if applicable')...

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.

Who decides what is applicable or not, and if the applicable scenarios are not listed in the terms, then are any applicable?

How does someone who is not a lawyer determine this so they can make an informed decision before they can agree to it?

Imagine the paperwork though (processing, tracking, etc.) that they would have to go through if everyone did send in a letter, option out.

I mean, we can stay cynical, stay beaten down, or we can push back. If enough people push back, you'll definitely see change.

The problem is there's always someone convincing people not to push back online, for some strange reason.