I’m pretty sure this won’t fly in court because this is a significant change to a product long after the product was purchased, which could potentially fly in the face of false advertising laws, since this “feature” was not advertised, and they’re not being denied access to a product they purchased. It’s clearly coercive.
However, this is the USA and stupider shit has happened. Judges here love to gargle corporate balls. See: Clearance Thomas.
Oh, to be fair, I stole that from someone else. Similar story, don’t know if it was on purpose or on accident (didn’t ask). It’s fucking gold. Anyway, it was a random reddit comment deep in a thread, sorry I can’t credit them since I don’t recall their name.
Also how would they prove the owner even saw the notice they supposedly agreed to? This is probably them testing the waters for something worse.
We have a couple of Rokus, but I haven’t seen the prompt yet. I’m thinking my 8 year old clicked through it. I wonder what situation that creates.
In general, those terms and conditions are not enforceable, but that’s not why they exist. Roku knows that if they are challenged, they will probably not win in court, but it creates that first hurdle. It costs money to go to court and hire lawyers to make those arguments. And Roku is willing to pay more for lawyers, so maybe they do win. So for you, the little guy, how much can you afford to spend on a case where you might lose?
