• ringwraithfishEnglish
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    7 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    I wonder if that will hold up in court for existing customers affected prior to the updated TOS.

    • OsaErisXero
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      7 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      It would not*

      *Does not apply in the 5th circuit

      • Pseu
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        7 months ago
        edit-2
        7 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

    • catloafEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.