Features, settings & updates

[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. 

[fladude]

ATC:

We BOUGHT Hardware, Bought Box/stick/TV

Thats OUR PROPERTY

Now as far as Roku Services only those services Roku provides -Roku Channel, Services through Roku subscribed and paid for through Roku would be what Roku is involved in.

Roku SELLS devices, they no longer OWN said Devices they use peoples own Internet to connect to services people pay for or are free..hulu...tubi

A TV sold by Roku simply has Rokus  side service included as in Roku Channel and ability to subscribe through Roku to services..

Thats the part where Roku is involved in.

Not the Hardware , not past warranted period for it.

To say Roku still owns boxes and TV's then should require Roku to FREELY replace when wears out , etc way a Cable TV provider supplies the equipment...

Roku however SELLS devices and Tv's that is sale of Property, thereso Roku has had NO RIGHT to  BRICK our Devices by rendering them useless to use unless Click Agree...  or hidden way in it all Write snail mail opt out and wait days..weeks for ones PROPERTY to be restored to use?

Nope. Thats what is the problem, not its seeking to require arbitration (which ONLY would involve any PAID Subscriptions or anything Directly involving Roku in providing services.

So People find TV's...boxes Bricked/blocked unless click AGREE, no "disagree button"

Thats ILLEGAL. We paid $$$ for PROPERTY we Bought, otherwise are our computers still owned by  Dell? HP? Levono?

Our Cars owned by car companys

Nope, 

Roku sells devices and TV's and once sold their Our property, not rokus and roku has no legal right to disable use

[brunsworks]

Well, no. Your point doesn't follow.

I did read the initial ToS and agreed to arbitration as part of them.

Since then, I have read more about arbitration, and made an informed decision.

Reading the ToS and understanding arbitration are two separate things, and it's a mistake to conflate the two in just about any context.

That said, your example with a more expensive product is appreciated, and I am aware that other forms of conflict resolution aren't necessarily much better.

I also agree that Roku utterly fumbled the rollout of the revised agreement.

As for the potential damages, though, I would say that while obviously the initial cost of entry for the Bolt is much higher, and thus presents the possibility of a much higher direct material loss, Roku has to store various amounts of personal information. That's why I don't store payment information on the device. However, if someone stored payment information on their Roku device, and Roku suffered a data breach, the losses could theoretically be much higher...especially since stolen payment information can in limited cases lead to total identity theft.

Admittedly, now that vehicles are storing and reporting personal information, those losses could potentially hit consumers of those products as well. Additionally, both streaming devices and motor vehicles report on our activities, which could also result in various forms of damages.

Corporations: Dystopian science fiction was meant to be a warning, not a road map.

[atc98092]

@fladude I am in complete agreement about the way Roku forced the update out to devices and mandated acceptance. No argument with you at all about that. Judging by the way the comments have dropped off, and some people now saying they never received the notice, it's possible that someone at Roku HQ woke up and pulled it from the devices. I don't know. I have no inside knowledge about how the company came to that decision nor anything else internal. 

[greginga]

I'm pretty sure the terms are just to keep their product safe from pirates and protect them from law suites. I don't think there's anything in there about taking your first born. It's a device to watch TV on, what is it that you think you have to worry about?

[greginga]

@fladude Actually, your TV will still work. It's the Roku software that has a terms of service, as does ALL software. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the terms are just to keep their product safe from pirates and protect them from law suites. I don't think there's anything in there about taking your first born. It's a device to watch TV on, what is it that you think you have to worry about?

[Emissary35]

@greginga  Just because it's a device to watch TV on and not something more important does not make what Roku did right. Your device's software should never be locked out until you agree to something you have no choice but to accept if you want to continue to use the device that you purchased with your money.

[NoMoreTvsByU]

I get it.  But if I buy a tv with an agreement that I can abide by I’m all for it.  Don’t make me settle to your terms anfter the purchase and then change said agreement, otherwise we’ll disable your tv for not agreeing.  That’s a red flag my man. “Office space” your roku

[mlewis49]

If Roku gets away with this, what's to stop Tesla or GM from bricking your car since most new models have computers that can be updated on the fly? Tesla has already done it to customers who were late on payments.