They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.
I'm not sure why courts consider that to hold any weight; to me it goes against the whole notion of informed consent in binding agreements. And to be fair, often the courts don't consider to hold any weight.
>They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.
You don't need to read 10 pages of fine print for every product, because it's functionally the same fine print for every product.
If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff.
I avoid smart devices like the plague. If I want my speakers smart, I'll connect them to a suitable control unit. The only thing I want from my speakers is for them to translate electrical waves into pressure waves, the more accurate the better.
>"If you don't like this, don't ever buy smart devices because they /all/ reserve the right to do this kind of stuff."
It seems odd then that you have to actually buy the device before you can even read the terms. I guess the idea is that you can always return it if you don't agree?
I don't know about the US, but in the EU if you don't get to see the terms before buying, the terms are effectively void. (of course most non-trivial EULA-style terms are already void in the EU, since it's well known that nobody reads them)
The downside is that if you don't keep buying the new systems even though the old ones work perfectly fine, eventually your device will get too old and you will be categorised as a legacy customer. When that happens, your shit will stop working.
I'm the same way and I love my 80's Marantz amp/Boston Acoustics floorstanders setup. But I still keep a cheap Chromecast audio and a $10 Bluetooth receiver around for parties, it's just so much easier especially when people forget their headphone dongles these days.
They implicitly agree under duress, because their time is worth far too much to even read 10 pages of fine print for every product they use. I'm not being flippant; it bloody well is.
I'm not sure why courts consider that to hold any weight; to me it goes against the whole notion of informed consent in binding agreements. And to be fair, often the courts don't consider to hold any weight.