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
I have no idea how US contract law works. Even if you agree to something that says “we can alter the deal at any time”, when a change happens to the deal, don’t both sides have to benefit, rather than “agree to this change so that you can keep the same thing you had before”?
I honestly think a lot of these terms of service agreements are legally unenforceable, but they don’t get contested in court very often.
Like if they say “you consented to the arbitration agreement” I could just argue I never physically signed anything and it was actually my 5 year old who agreed so he could watch TV.
I have no idea how US contract law works. Even if you agree to something that says “we can alter the deal at any time”, when a change happens to the deal, don’t both sides have to benefit, rather than “agree to this change so that you can keep the same thing you had before”?
I honestly think a lot of these terms of service agreements are legally unenforceable, but they don’t get contested in court very often.
Like if they say “you consented to the arbitration agreement” I could just argue I never physically signed anything and it was actually my 5 year old who agreed so he could watch TV.
But don’t you see, the consumer surely benefits. After agreeing they get to continue using their tv under our new and wonderful terms of service. /s
Hadn’t actually thought about this but it’s a good point, they are varying the T&Cs with no consideration here.