You fail to mention, to buy that item you had to sign away your right to sue, and instead bring any dispute to binding arbitration of their choosing. Scotus endorsed this officially over a decade back, but it’s been standard since around 2001, also for low wage employment contracts.
The part that hasn’t been litigated is unilaterally modifying the agreement and whether you separately own the TV apart from the software covered by the click-wrap contact of adhesion.
I think a court would decide you have the right to use the TV without the software if you disagree with the terms. Except they currently give you no way to do that.
Further, it should be illegal to require an update that updates the terms, since the manufacturer effectively can force you to agree to new terms while holding your TV hostage.
Contract rights have a limit, especially with TOS agreements that are not negotiable.
You fail to mention, to buy that item you had to sign away your right to sue, and instead bring any dispute to binding arbitration of their choosing. Scotus endorsed this officially over a decade back, but it’s been standard since around 2001, also for low wage employment contracts.
The part that hasn’t been litigated is unilaterally modifying the agreement and whether you separately own the TV apart from the software covered by the click-wrap contact of adhesion.
I think a court would decide you have the right to use the TV without the software if you disagree with the terms. Except they currently give you no way to do that.
Further, it should be illegal to require an update that updates the terms, since the manufacturer effectively can force you to agree to new terms while holding your TV hostage.
Contract rights have a limit, especially with TOS agreements that are not negotiable.