Features, settings & updates

[AJCxZ0]

@o2night wrote:

Why is it so hard for people to get the point of this?  The arbitration update wasn't the problem.  It was BRICKING people's tvs to FORCE it.

Since my post started the conversation, I'll take at least some of the blame for presuming the main problem was obvious, with the secondary problem of identifying the changes in the Dispute Resolution Terms (not the existence of arbitration terms), and tertiary problem being the punitive opt-out process which provides no sensible way to return devices to a functional state.

To be fair to the folks for whom this was the first time they discovered the arbitration terms and who, by virtue of not being familiar with the applicability of such terms and how disputes are handled in practice in their jurisdiction, were unpleasantly surprised, their expression of this has a place in this discussion - even if it distracts from the focus on the more important and urgent problem.

[AJCxZ0]

The Roku Premier+ (4630X) which has remained powered off for several months was powered on two days ago, updated and restarted. I updated and restarted it again just now.

There was no notice.

While I am sceptical that this signifies anything and even more so that I can find out anything useful from customer support, I would be interested to hear what happens when starting, updating and restarting other devices which have been powered off since before the beginning of March 2024.

[AJCxZ0]

Louis Rossmann has posted a video about this - "Roku's Ransom: Agree to Forced Arbitration or Lose Your TV!" - in which he coins a term for Roku's behaviour which perfectly captures the violation of consent.
He mentions this in his video "Roku's Data Breach Nightmare & Forced Arbitration Scandal, Why They Held Your TV Hostage" and again in "Blizzard locks you out of account if you don't agree to new terms; no ownership, forced arbitration" (which I mention not as a told-you-so).

[Equake]

I am assuming that class action attorneys don’t feel there is enough money involved to make it worth their time. Of course, the lawyers are the big winners in these suits. Not sure how much all of this means in dollars to ROKU users. I have been reading many of the messages and not seeing any opinions from lawyers that would give ROKU users an opinion about what our rights are in this situation and how to get our ROKUs back online. It really sounds like an opportunity. I haven’t researched ROKU’s issues so I am not saying this is a viable opportunity, just saying it sounds like one. 

I hope that legal options are available to us - I would certainly sign on with everyone to kick ROKU ass - or we all risk losing our connections to other services who want to use ransom to get what they want. 

Let’s go get ‘em. It your right. 

[AvsGunnar]

---

@AJCxZ0 wrote:

Louis Rossmann has posted a video about this...

---

He is spot on in his commentary and this increasing trend.  Primary reason I prefer/push open-source and continuously try to discover and maintain alternative methods of streaming my content.

His mention of just using a computer connected to the TV to stream content is what many of us used to do before these little streaming devices came along.  Much of my personal streaming is still done through various laptops connected to my TVs.  Other than my single RokuTV, the rest of them are older "dumb" TVs with streaming devices connected to them.

A streaming device is really for convenience.  When the convenience of any product finally is outweighed by the limitations imposed or arrogance/indifference of a company towards its customers, it will simply be relegated to less of a role in my usage.  

---

[o2night]

Not everybody bought little streaming devices.  Some depend on the apps and streaming capabilities of the "SMART" tv they paid for.  Expensive pieces of equipment that gave them the RIGHT to have control of the streaming capabilities and apps they PAID FOR when they bought those televisions.
For  Roku to threaten "do this or we'll take the 'smart' off your tv", is an egregious hostage situation and if people don't see this, then they deserve what they get when their freedoms are completely strippped, and it's coming.

As for attorneys not seeing the worth in a class action suit?  It's only been a couple weeks.  Give it time.  I have a feeling one is already in motion.   Yes, the attorneys will make all the money, and if I only saw a dollar of that money go to a customer, I would be happy knowing Roku was taken to task and taught that the people who got them where they are, are worth far more than their business is.  One very substantial punishment tends to wake the woke up.

[AJCxZ0]

Legal professionals are unlikely to weigh in here because legal matters tend to be highly nuanced, vary widely by jurisdiction, they are usually constrained and probably have plenty of paid work to do. Legal amateurs (and illegal professionals) offering legal advice is worth every penny.

---

@Equake wrote:

I am assuming that class action attorneys don’t feel there is enough money involved to make it worth their time.

---

@o2night wrote:

As for attorneys not seeing the worth in a class action suit?

For a class action to become a possibility, some civil suits need to be filed. This means that someone needs to pay the costs - time, attention, effort, paper, ink, travel, money, etc. - to get the process started. This involves the plaintiff showing that they suffered harm and that the defendant is (to some degree) responsible. The circumstances in which a class action can be established may vary, but would involve a significant number of others doing the same.

Another major factor to consider is that civil courts issue judgements which attempt to make plaintiffs whole, i.e. compensate them for their losses, by awarding money judged to be equivalent to the loss. At best this would likely be the pro-rated cost of our paid subscriptions while our devices were inoperable; that is presuming that the court agreed that the devices were inoperable.

Most class action cases settle and usually do so with the defendant agreeing to pay a specific amount which gets distributed to the class after the professionals have been paid for their work an amount approved by the court. When reported in the media or experienced personally, these are rarely perceived as satisfying a sense of punitive justice.

What makes this instance interesting is that the changes in the existing agreement may pertain to the right to form a class... or maybe they don't, since how were we supposed to know what changed in the latest - or any other - iteration of the Dispute Resolution Terms to which we "agreed"? Nevertheless, a version of the "Class-Action Waiver" terms precede this incident. As for the applicability of such terms, agreements and such in any or all applicable jurisdictions and how parties can and do put almost anything they want in contracts which cannot be negotiated, that's a broader subject.

n.b. I did mention the value of amateur legal advice. This isn't even advice, but caveat lector.

[TrashTV]

too bad, they shouldn't of **bleep**ed with their customers paid products if they don't want a reaction like this.

[KTM77777]

This is RIDICULOUS!!  You can’t press ok or the * asterisk to read the terms or remove the message!! HELP!!

[TrashTV]

Go to your Roku account on your phone, turn it on Guest mode. That so far has helped