Roku users around the country turned on their TVs this week to find an unpleasant surprise: The company required them to consent to new dispute resolution
Outrage over ticking a checkbox? Was anything in the updated TOS worth being pissed about or are people just that fucking lazy? The article not having the exact wording of the changes but talking about the dispute resolution arbitration–that’s in every TOS for pretty much everything ever isn’t mandatory and doesn’t say you can’t sue–is a bit suspicious.
Dude already had to update the article because he misunderstood one thing already. This reads like the knee jerk reaction of a random person which belongs on a blog, and not a news article that belongs on a news outlet site.
If you can’t see that the issue is that the TOS could include anything the company wants and that disagreeing means the device I already paid for is intentionally bricked then I don’t know what to tell you.
They’ve always been able to do that; it’s often the very first fucking paragraph of a TOS. If you’re just now noticing it I don’t know what to tell you.
I don’t agree with the practice; but at this point it’s not like you can do shit about it unless you’re building your own devices. Not that anything illegal added to a TOS would be upheld in court anyway… I’d love to see someone actually sue on this issue, but nobody upset about it seems to have the money or willingness to do so, considering it’s been a thing for decades.
Besides: that wasn’t the point the article was making, either, which is what I have issue with; The shoddy journalism.
Outrage over ticking a checkbox? Was anything in the updated TOS worth being pissed about or are people just that fucking lazy? The article not having the exact wording of the changes but talking about the dispute resolution arbitration–that’s in every TOS for pretty much everything ever isn’t mandatory and doesn’t say you can’t sue–is a bit suspicious.
Dude already had to update the article because he misunderstood one thing already. This reads like the knee jerk reaction of a random person which belongs on a blog, and not a news article that belongs on a news outlet site.
If you can’t see that the issue is that the TOS could include anything the company wants and that disagreeing means the device I already paid for is intentionally bricked then I don’t know what to tell you.
They’ve always been able to do that; it’s often the very first fucking paragraph of a TOS. If you’re just now noticing it I don’t know what to tell you.
What flavor is that boot you’re licking? Must be pretty tasty.
I don’t agree with the practice; but at this point it’s not like you can do shit about it unless you’re building your own devices. Not that anything illegal added to a TOS would be upheld in court anyway… I’d love to see someone actually sue on this issue, but nobody upset about it seems to have the money or willingness to do so, considering it’s been a thing for decades.
Besides: that wasn’t the point the article was making, either, which is what I have issue with; The shoddy journalism.