This week, Roku users across the nation discovered an unwelcome surprise when they turned on their televisions: In order to access their device, the company required them to consent to new dispute resolution terms. The devices remain inoperable until the user provides consent.
The day prior, users (at least this user) were notified via email that “We have modified our Dispute Resolution Terms, which detail the process for resolving disputes with Roku.” It is strongly advised that you review the revised Dispute Resolution Terms. By maintaining your usage of our products or services, you are explicitly consenting to the revised terms.
Naturally, the terms contain a mandatory arbitration clause that forbids the user from initiating or participating in litigation against Roku. It is currently prevalent as a method of limiting liability, and users frequently have minimal or no recourse. They are not informed until the company has committed an abhorrent act, for which the repercussions are minimal. Tech companies adore this one nefarious method for conserving millions. (Full disclosure: our parent company’s policy on dispute resolution also mandates arbitration.)
An examination of the provisions reveals, however, that an entire “Informal Dispute Resolution” section is novel. Legal complaints must be presented to Roku attorneys first, who will then “make a fair, fact-based offer of resolution” that is undoubtedly considerate and generous during a “meet-and-confer” call. As a result, a pre-arbitration arbitrator has been appointed to further prevent legal threats from materializing. While the modification was executed last autumn (although no official notification seems to have been issued), it has only recently been implemented; users are now being notified via this dubious method several weeks later.
I make every effort to avoid these whenever possible. Upon reviewing the terms (which I had already agreed to by “continuing to use” my television), I discovered that the only way to do so was to send a written notice to their attorneys; I had every intention of doing so today. In fact, given that arbitration was seemingly mandatory to begin with, this update affords me the chance to decline an obligation of which I was previously unaware.
As countless others (some of whom saw it a few days ago) did when I turned on the television yesterday, I was once again met with the notice; they took to the forums to lodge their complaints. I inadvertently consented (again, I believe) by clicking the star icon to view the terms and then clicking back; my intention was to find an exit, but alas, none materialized. Gaining access to the device necessitated consenting to the revised terms.
Notably, the terms have remained unchanged for quite some time. The new episode of “Shſgun,” which has thus far been excellent, appeared as follows for those who were simply attempting to view it:
This was posted by forum member AJCxZ0; I trust that’s okay.
Although this is not atypical,. In any case, we are consistently exposed to new end-user license agreements (EULAs) and terms and conditions when we utilize new applications and games. Without a doubt, I have disregarded a dozen of them and put myself in unfathomable peril. However, there is something abhorrent about completely disabling a user’s device until they consent and consenting to essentially anything the user does. Until you concur, numerous phones, applications, and services permit you to continue using them for a period of time or limit you to the most recent version.
Sadly, that is not the situation in this instance. I am immediately obligated to abide by this new agreement. You should also opt out, but you’ll need to do so quickly. I will continue to do so. You may only do so within thirty days of the terms’ implementation. It is conceivable that you received notification at that moment, or alternatively, on March 20, thirty days subsequent to their ostensibly (and covertly) implemented date of February 20. Therefore, obtain a pen and paper and record the subsequent details:
- Name of the individual opting out.
- Contact information includes an address and phone number.
- Email used for registering the Roku account (if applicable).
- Product model, software, or service in question (e.g., TV model number, streaming stick, Roku OS).
- Optional: Include a receipt if available, although it’s not mandatory. Once collected, please mail these details to:
Stephen Kay, General Counsel, Roku, Inc., 1701 Junction Court, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95112
In advance, Stephen, many thanks. Upon reflection, I, along with each and every user of your organization’s services, would have preferred a simple electronic opt-out method over this deceitful strategy designed to increase friction and coerce adoption of these terms even more.
You will be unable to participate in the enjoyment if they are sued over how they held devices hostage to coerce consumers into accepting consumer-hostile dispute resolution terms. Approximately 35 of us who still have convenient access to pens, paper, and envelopes will be the ones to benefit.