Features, settings & updates

[Orudy1]

Hey, I knew that. but I bet a lot of other Roku owners might not. I grew up BR, BC, BT (b4 remotes, b4 chips, b4 television even) and seen it all (have the FCC license to prove).  To get back on topic with our devices actually on most of the time, they can send down the pipe anything they wish to.  That doesn't mean they should , but they can. We are held hostage to a corporation with a bad business model with a team of lawyers that screwed the pooch here and public sentiment goes a long way toward their future mebbe. The saying "the customer is always right" has been forgotten along the way.  Apology is offered for my age to all. I'll stay on topic, ok?

[brunsworks]

The answer that occurs to me is that they want to make it harder to opt out.

I will not enter into arbitration with Roku. If Roku wants to avoid legal action, they should avoid doing anything that would get them sued.

[brunsworks]

It doesn't work with the Roku phone app?

[atc98092]

---

@brunsworks wrote:

I will not enter into arbitration with Roku. If Roku wants to avoid legal action, they should avoid doing anything that would get them sued.

---

Arbitration was part of the terms of service you agreed to when you first got your Roku. It's always been there. This is not a new or changed item. There are other changes, yes. But arbitration has always been there. 

[AH04]

I didn't see this message, and when I asked my minor kids if they saw it, kids being kids and not of legal age, don't recall seeing it.  So, NO clue if that message appeared, OR if it did, possibly a minor-aged child agreed to it.  Or maybe the kids friends pressed the 'agree' button??  This "new terms" seriously can't be legally upheld in any court of law...

[CrunchyCandyCoa]

Holy **bleep**, I was just about to buy a new soundbar, with plans on expanding to rear satellites and a subwoofer.  

Bullet dodged!

Pity, I really loved that pro remote.  😞

[Baileyl03]

Yes I am in.  They are holding my TV hostage.  We waited for a long time to buy a TV that was "smart".  We went with a Roku because we have a Roku on our old TV in our house.  Looks like that was a mistake.  Now I have a TV that I can't use in our RV, and 1 at home as well as a Roku plug in.  We purchase a product in good faith, pay money to own and use it and now it is being held hostage unless we agree to their Dispute Reolution Terms.  How can this be legal?

[Baileyl03]

Pushing the home button did nothing for me.

[brunsworks]

That would have been a fair point before. However:

I didn't know as much about arbitration three years ago when I bought the device.

I've since read up on how little traction consumers get in arbitration against corporations.

I've opted out by mail.

As such, I will no longer entertain arbitration.

Keep being anti-customer, and you may run out of customers.

[atc98092]

---

@brunsworks wrote:

That would have been a fair point before. However:

I didn't know as much about arbitration three years ago when I bought the device.

---

Then you didn't read the terms of service when you bought your first device. No surprise there, as almost no one ever reads them. I certainly didn't. But the only thing you are opt-ing out of is whatever changes to those terms are within the new document. I could be wrong, but I would expect you would still be bound by the previous TOS, which did include arbitration. 

First let me say that Roku really messed up the way they brought the revised agreement out. They should never have done it that way. But when you consider the value of a Roku device (no player exceeds $100 and no TV exceeds $1000 to my knowledge), there would be no benefit to a user to bring legal action against Roku. Even if you won, the legal fees would exceed whatever judgement you might win. So arbitration might actually provide a better settlement for you.

I can give one example with a far more expensive product. I had a Chevrolet Bolt EUV that I leased for about $42,000. The next day GM issued the recall for potential battery fires. I was forced (only because of problems I might have if I didn't accept) to have a software patch installed that limited the charge level of my battery, which reduced my range below what I expected to have. I filed for arbitration using a service provided by the BBB. Two weeks after I filed, GM offered to buy my car back at full original cost, with no mileage deduction. Assuming I could have gotten the same offer if I had taken legal action, I still would have had to pay my council, so it would have taken the majority of the actual cash I received. So arbitration isn't a necessary bad thing, if both parties just work out the issues.