this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
701 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59447 readers
5299 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Props for not claiming it anyways
"Roger Rodger"
"we've got clearance Clarence"
"What's our vector victor?"
From the movie airplane.
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.
You didn’t consent and your child can’t.
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?
Same.
The point is that few have the money to prove this.