Features, settings & updates

[atc98092]

---

@winner15 wrote:

disagree with all of it

---

All of what? The revised terms of use? The vast majority of it was already in whatever version you agreed to when you first set your Roku device up when it was new. There wasn't much changed in the latest update. Binding arbitration was always there. 

[sirlou]

Maybe some of these people should change that signature lines to: "I am not a Roku employee, I just shill for them".?

Cmon, I am so tired for these people who want to come in and shill for the man, and apparently love having their rights stripped in the most one-sided, arbitrary and anti-consumer manner possible. My favourite part is how they all quote the same "nothing changed" lines and also how they fail to acknowledge any changes whatsoever in the present terms (which uh, it was the actual CHANGES that were made that required the redistribution of the new revised TOS terms, duh!), nor the absolute vileness of their presentation to the consumer.

Eventually, when the mega corps have left them with nothing, maybe then you'll wise up. Not likely, tho, not with that type. They craze being with the in-group, hoping to be praised or spared...even tho they won't be. Pathetic.

[atc98092]

You don't like the answer, that's fine. Apparently you haven't noticed my other posts that said Roku was completely wrong with the way they attempted to notify users about the TOS update. Yeah, it was really bad, and I've complained privately to the company as well. But they listen to me as well as they listen to anyone else, which means they don't. 

[mlewis49]

If nothing has changed, why would Roku antagonize so many customers with such a ham-fisted attempt to extort a user agreement?

[Lynise66]

I agree! Then just as I clicked that stupid I Agree to be able to watch my TV which Roku took full control of, few days later I see an article about a Roku Data Breach which had me question: OK is that why they blocked all programming? I mean I could be wrong but why I see that article in Top Class Action lawsuits and settlements a few days later? Not sure.

[atc98092]

I didn’t say nothing changed. I’m simply pointing out arbitration has always been in the TOS. And that is what most complaints are about. But the absolutely did a terrible job sending it out. That was completely stupid. 

[sirlou]

Nope, not buying it! I call BS dude.

Your posts (and other shills and plants) all seem to continue the party line that "there was no change to complain about" and "arbitration has been in there forever". Again, BS!

These responses are disingenuous at best and suspect AF, as the kids would say.

The recent TOS change was a HUGE change SPECIFICALLY in term of the arbitration clauses, as the change was to DISALLOW GROUP ARBITRATION and only allow INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION, substantially weakening consumers' protections.

So please stop with this BS already.

Think I am making it up, OK well I think CONSUMER REPORTS is far more trustworthy a source for consumers than these company shills. Read their article which points out the massive arbitration change to disallow collective consumer action: https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/tvs/why-is-roku-disabling-tvs-a1111833568/

And why would ROKU need to suddenly block mass arbitration...could it have anything to do with the MASSIVE DATA BREACH (which I correctly predicted was a probable cause of this change to the TOS)? A data breach that happened a while ago but was only reveal after this BS TOS change being forced on people. Of course it did!

So yeah, keep shilling if you want, but no one should believe the company line you are selling.

[fladude]

There's a Legal point, Certain rights and actions can be limited to the TOS in force or Laws in force AT TIME OF the Damage occurring.

So its quite possible that ROKU may not be able to force individual arbitration
if the damage/offense act occurred BEFORE the TOS were updated, any AGREE would be Agreeing to the TOS from that Agree point onward for anything that occurs from that agree point onwards but  a court may NOT allow Roku to retroactive apply to months-more back before the updated TOS

So group arbitration might be ordered done by a court if the arbitrated offense occurred before they changed their TOS

So if over data breach that occurred before TOS change, before "agree"
is the reason, a court could toss out Rokus trying force individual arbitration
on basis of a Agree to new TOS coming AFTER point of damage action occurring.

In past I sued a top 3 Pharmacal company over their drugs damage, I could not
use anything in the action other then their Pamphlet on how to use it, the laws in effect at time of harm.

Later things like them updating their pamphlet to warn of danger in combining with other drug couldn't be used by them either.


So from my experience there, changes in law, changes by companys in labeling, warning, changing TOS often are NOT allowed be RETROACTIVE applied 

ROKU seems to be retroactive applying by this to cover a retroactive damage point and change retroactive the TOS that was in effect by any damage they did.

I dont think Courts are going look kindly at Roku trying retroactive apply TOS 
to past damage they might be liable for and tell Roku the TOS in effect at time of damage occurring is the Terms that apply.

Not their new ones.

[TheMightyCasey]

I still not seeing where I would be harmed from Roku that I would be to sue the company for anything. If there was a data breached, what would they get? They would get the same personal information as they would get from a phone book. Now, if I was stupid enough to had have Roku store my credit card information for me. It would take me less that 5 minutes to change my card. So, I am not seeing where I would be that harmed.

But if you get that but hurt over arbortration. I say, Go for it! I just think people are stupid for dumping a $100 streaming device over such a minor thing as arbortration. But, if you think it's such a big deal. Great!

Go replace you devices, because there are tens of millions that have no problem with the new terms of service and arbortration.

[mlewis49]

If we don't draw the line here, where does it end? Tesla has already started disabling cars if customers are behind in payments. What's to stop them from doing it to force you to sign a service agreement? Any car that has an internet connection can be disabled. Chevy has Onstar. They can shut your car off until you agree to buy a high-priced Onstar subscription. BMW has already gone so far as to disable options unless the owner pays them a subscription fee. If you have smart appliances, the company that made them could similarly hold you hostage. I view Roku shutting down my TV, which I have already paid for, theft. If someone robbed you in the street would you ignore it if they only got a few hundred dollars from you? Maybe you meek enough to let people piss on you and tell you it's raining, I'm not.