[janalsncm]

As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.

So it’s not a question of being savvy. As a consumer you can’t know what a company will choose to do in the future.

The lawsuit seems to be about using ACR, not the presence of ads.

[josephg]

> As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent Samsung from selling you a TV, then sending out a software update in two years which forces you to accept a new terms of service that allows them to serve you ads. If you do not accept, they brick your TV.

To the parent commenters' point, this is a perfect example of a situation where governments should be stepping in.

[hobobaggins]

The thing that prevents a TV mfg from bricking your device is that they'd be instantly (and successfully) sued. In fact, there have already been many such class actions, ie with printer inks.

The downside is that it's sometimes easier and cheaper to just pay off the class and keep doing it.

[rootusrootus]

> If you do not accept, they brick your TV.

That ought to be a slam dunk win in court. Especially since they probably won't show up to my local small claims court and I'll just send them the judgement.