this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
237 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59312 readers
4649 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 wonder if that will hold up in court for existing customers affected prior to the updated TOS.
It would not*
*Does not apply in the 5th circuit
It probably wouldn't hold up in court, but it can be used as a bludgeon to dissuade people from filing in the first place. Roku is totally allowed to lie and say "You can't sue, you agreed to mandatory arbitration. // You can't join the class action, you agreed not to. If you do either of these things, we'll sue you."
This could easily dissuade quite a few people from litigating, limiting how much the company needs to pay out.
Unlikely.
Note that the bit about arbitration or not filing class action suits is not new. The new bit was having to talk to their lawyers even before requesting arbitration.
But in any case, I doubt those would be held enforceable in the event of something like this.