@atc98092 wrote:
You all realize a CA suit would likely provide you with maybe a $5 coupon good for a new Roku device, and best case scenario it might be a $5 check? Class action suits benefit almost no one other than the law-yers. Yes, Roku really messed up big time with the way they pushed this updated information out. It's not the information itself that is bad or wrong, as it's mostly in line with other providers. But the way they did it was not good at all.
I agree the damages under any USA or even California doesn't make taking legal action worth it. The consumer protection laws are still a long way off from the EU here.
The problem, as I see it, that Roku real mess up is in their attempt to expand into the Smart Home market.
It is well known that the Roku Smart Home hardware is made in partnership with Wyze. It is not as well known exactly home much code the devices and the cloud services share in common. So, when something comes up recently as Wyze showing random security camera images associate with completely different accounts, I think it is reasonable to ask:
What policies, procedures and ToS assurances are there from Roku to keep this from happening with Roku "Smart" Home devices?
What this force ToS agreement screen did, at least for me, was scream directly into my face that Roku doesn't intend to be accountable or responsible with any of it's products. For a streaming player provider that is just kind of meh. But for a so-called "SECURITY" camera vendor to be forcibly *YELLING* this at customers is kind of horrific and beyond disappointing.
I can not understand why Roku would do this unless they are planning to drop out of the "security" camera business anyways. They pointed a ToS bazooka at their feet, blew both of them off and now have no reasonable way to approach the customer anymore. It is so depressing to see how they decided to play this anti-reassurance as the response!
