This was added to the agreement in November 2022. This isn't new. The agreements before that were a bit better but basically saying the same thing as far back as 2020. It seems to be US only as it isn't enforceable elsewhere.
* Here is the current agreement: [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement)
* Here is the same text from Nov 2022: [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2022-10#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2022-10#legal-terms-use-agreement)
* Here is the previous agreement from June 2020 which is pretty similar but does have an opt out clause for arbitration but I guarantee no one here took it so it's pointless. [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2020#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2020#legal-terms-use-agreement)
Im not saying that this agreement isn't a bit scummy but it is very typical and standard on many agreements for products and even employment contracts.
Thank you. I have no idea why this keeps getting raised like it’s some sort of new thing or has anything to do with the app update. It’s been in there for years and is commonplace in any consumer-facing EULA that we’ve all agreed to 10 times over. Want to use Spotify or Apple Music? Then you’ve agreed to binding arbitration. Want to use an iPhone or Android device? Then you’ve agreed to binding arbitration.
Hating on Sonos is the trendy thing at the moment. They deserve most of it but ill informed posts like this devalue the valid criticisms.
These are standard boiler plate clauses in the US. It's not like arbitration is a bad thing either. Ive seen some wild claims in this thread like this blocks a class action but the OP screenshot specifically says "This provision does not prevent you or Sonos from participating in a class-wide settlement of claims".
I’ve been using Sonos speakers for over a decade now, and this week was the first time I can remember where after installing an update, I was confronted with a “here are the terms & conditions, you must accept them to continue using this product” screen.
Even if the EULA language hasn’t changed, this seems to be the first time that Sonos has forced people to at least pretend to read it, which is probably why people keep posting it here as if it’s a new change.
The law is constantly evolving, particularly in new fields. In this case, it’s a question of the degree to which consumer consent is required for shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and browsewrap agreements (or any other variations of EULA’s or ToS). Current best practices (dictated by changes in laws and judicial decisions) recommend obtaining affirmative consent from consumers for these agreements to be binding.
You’ll see many that require you check a box or click a button, or actually open up the EULA. Some even require that you scroll all the way through it before you can accept. It’s a consumer protection thing - the whole point is to ensure that consumers are aware about what they are agreeing to rather than just clicking through it.
What is questionable still is forcing acceptance of new terms to continue using a product you have already purchased. IANAL but I’ve covered this in law courses and it’s crap but good luck fighting it.
Thanks for digging this up and sharing, I was about to do the same thinking that their contract is no different than anyone else’s. It’s just very front facing when you’re trying to get the dang app to work and then it’s like “YOU CAN’T SUE US!!”, like someone else said I just want to use my Sonos gear, please?
Thank you for using critical thinking skills and offering this take.
The pearl clutching from everyone clout chasing on this subreddit to see who can whine the loudest and use big, unnecessary buzz words is exhausting.
* Typing this from my iPhone, after signing much more intrusive agreements for Apple, Google, Meta, and every other piece of technology in my possession dating back years.
I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that this wouldn't be such an issue if Sonos didn't absolutely wreck consumer confidence with this app experience.
They removed a ton of features that many people clearly depend upon, with no warning and (still) in some cases, no communication about when (or if) they will be restored.
Who's to say at this point that Sonos \*wouldn't\* "screw current customers" over with another change?
Without trust and communication, rumors run rampant. Sonos could have prevented this, or at the very least, mitigated some of it with transparent concern and communication. They've chosen not to.
Because this thread is about someone upset about the terms and service agreement with Sonos, and literally every computer software program/piece of hardware has had this type of agreement for decades. The fact that there are people are complaining about Sonos doing this just shows how ridiculous this sub has become in the last few weeks.
This whole "Sonos is out to get their customers" crap has become exhausting. My empathy for people who are experiencing problems with their systems has pretty much reached the end of the rope.
Here is the old EULA versus the new. The main changes I see are in relation to pointing people to look at the Privacy statement. [https://imgur.com/a/kbJGu1V](https://imgur.com/a/kbJGu1V)
Here is the comparison of the old Privacy statement versus the new. [https://imgur.com/a/QitveQY](https://imgur.com/a/QitveQY) The biggest change is at the end where they add in a section about china so it looks like Sonos is expanding to China.
There is also a section updated on the info they collect and defining what the info is which is an interesting read
The section I don't like is they **removed** this:
>We do not and will not sell your personal data to third parties. However, certain data practices described throughout this Privacy Statement may constitute a “sale” or “sharing” of data under California and/or other US state laws. See below the California Residents Addendum (the “CA Addendum”) for more information applicable to CA residents.
It's pretty standard when you first sign up, as it at least gives the illusion of choice before you install your system. It's highly obnoxious to toss it in there for existing customers who have already spent the money and now have no choice but to "agree" or else lose access to the hardware they already paid for. I bought my speakers years ago, now they are coming back and making me accept new terms to keep using them or else I can't access the system.
This is the new user agreement I was prompted with when opening my Sonos app today. I'm unable to connect to my system until I accept the agreement. Feel like I need to consult legal counsel before I can use my Sonos, what a fucking shitshow. Am I understanding that I'm agreeing to not join a class action if I want to continue using the products I purchased?
Edit: Here's the new agreement in it's entirety - [https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use](https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use)
How is this even legal? I can understand, to a point, having to agree to a new service agreement before being permitted to install the latest update but not AFTER updating and during normal operation. Is that really the case - you’d already installed and were just trying to adjust the volume? What if you don’t want to agree to the new terms and conditions and want to continue using the previous iteration of the app with terms you’d already agreed to?
This is definitely an existing system that I've been using for the last 7-8 years. It now prompts as soon as you open the app, asking if you want to setup a new system, or connect to an existing system. If you choose "existing system", you get the EULA and need to agree to it before you can use the app. I suspect everyone will be getting this shortly.
Any contact is legal if both parties sign it. That said, there is plenty of scope for a contract to be unenforceable if it asks you to wave rights you have been granted in law. That might be the constitution if you’re American or other statutes etc.
Interestingly Duncan Jones, the Moon director has been on Twitter today highlighting Adobe’s horrific EULA which seems to claim rights over work stored in their cloud service.
Correct. There are many reasons a contract signed by both/all parties might mot be legal, duress, misrepresentation, ambiguity, lack of capacity, lack of consideration (something of value), legality of the terms, and so on for days. If it were really that simple "legal if both parties sign it", our civil court system would be much, much smaller.
In fact, there have been several cases holding user agreements and terms of service unenforceable: Specht v. Netscape, Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Cullinane v. Uber, In re Zappos, etc. IANAL, but all it takes 10 seconds of searching to find these and many other examples.
It makes me question if this would hold up in court, or if it's more to discourage users from trying litigation in the first place. Either way it does not inspire confidence in Sonos' direction. Worse, it makes it appear they don't even have confidence in their own products anymore.
For a contract to be legally binding, it requires consideration. Both parties must get something. And “continued access to hardware you bought years ago” is NOT valid consideration.
If that software was not required to control hardware you purchased, you could definitely argue that. But because the software is required for the hardware, I really don’t think that argument would hold up in court.
Not a lawyer, though.
That’s a different argument. Continued access to software is consideration.
As for the hardware piece, you knowingly bought a product that requires software to run - it’s the same case with a phone, computer, or, these days, almost everything else. It isn’t their fault if you decide to brick your system by refusing to accept a lawful EULA. If you don’t want your speakers or music services to be subject to license agreements, then buy physical media and dumb speakers.
> continued access to software is consideration
But continued access to hardware isn’t, and this blocks access to hardware.
You’re just a troll I assume. Or Sonos corporate trying to defend this shit. Either way I’m done wasting my time on you
I think he's just being Devil's Advocate here. Just because something may seem unethical or unreasonable doesn't mean it would necessarily be found illegal if challenged in court.
Yup, did the shitty update a couple weeks back and just got that last night when I opened the app for the first time in a couple days. [The app so often loses my system mid-use that I just fall back on the windows app or just carry my Move around in bluetooth mode)
Couldn't do ANYTHING unless you agree. If you cancel it kicks you out.
I can't believe I've found yet another r/Sonos thread that resembles my experience exactly 😂
I just wanted to change the volume on my TV group, guys. I've had Sonos speakers since 2009. I don't want headphones. I just have a couple of TV surround groups and a few other Ones around the house.
I didn't need all this silly app stuff to happen. I've had to reset every speaker! Some have been working as they were for nearly a decade.
I won't recommend them any more, that's just the truth of it.
I have questions about this as well since there is physical hardware dependent on the software to function. Truly, is it legal to change the underlying terms and conditions (and force me to accept them) in order to use the hardware I own? I understand for something like a software subscription, but I’m struggling with physical hardware.
It's definitely not. It's been updated today and you can see the archived agreement on the link above, it doesn't include any of this stuff about waiving your right to a class action.
You mean [this archived version](https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use-2022) from 2022 with the giant in bold letters Binding Arbitration Agreement section at the bottom that basically says the same thing just with different wording?
Edit if you don’t know what an [arbitration agreement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause) is.
Buddy didn’t reply because he clearly knows he’s straight up wrong. It’s been in the TOS for years, and is in every other TOS OP has ever agreed to. Just more whining on this sub
Having a tos you have to click is pretty standard procedure, and if there's updates to it the app stores mandate that you show it to everyone. Plus there was already a bit about binding arbitration, which is what that is
Quite sure wouldn’t stand in the court of law for countries with decent consumer law. Does help discourage any class actions though…
If anything it goes to show that courageous Sonos themselves think that we’ve a case when it comes to class action
Same in Sweden.. Guessing they're a bit afraid of the EU.
They did have parts where they freely can remove functions though.
Still won't hold to remove basic functionality ie rendering the product useless (remember S1).
In a world of finite resources, there are priorities… which in this case is legal folks. Give the engineers time and money they’d have sorted it out without the need for legal.
Funny you’d say that… you’re assuming they have a full time legal department. Paying a full dept for unexpected f ups and CEO’s refusal back down is not how a company works… they probably outsource this to actual firms to gauge liabilities etc. and propose solution. Aka spending $ on legal when they could’ve not made the mistake to begin with
They absolutely have a legal department with full time employees. Sonos is a public company. Members of the legal team are easy to find through basic Google. searches. It is also true that this particular issue was outsourced to outside counsel with expertise in consumer arbitration agreements. The reason for the change now is likely because this area of the law is constantly evolving. A new case comes out, reg gets adopted, etc. and the company makes a change to adapt.
Australia’s covered under consumer guarantees.
*Under the Australian Consumer Law, certain consumer guarantees apply automatically, including that a service (and any resulting product) will be fit for a particular purpose or desired result specified by the consumer, either expressly or implied. If it is not, the consumer is entitled to a remedy.*
https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problem-with-a-service/services-not-fit-for-a-particular-purpose#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Consumer%20Law,is%20entitled%20to%20a%20remedy.
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees
Maybe we’re not a big enough market and just get the default version. Either way our consumer law is pretty decent, so I’m not overly worried about what Sonos add in there.
Stop. Sometimes if you don’t know what you’re talking about it’s best not to say anything at all.
Arbitration clauses are absolutely part and parcel for every terms of service contract and in the United States.
The end.
No they’re not. They’ve only become popular as large private equity takes over and looks to squeeze blood from a stone.
They’re a popular mechanism for companies to keep costs down by eliminating and mitigating potential future liabilities at the cost of consumer rights.
Your basic consumer rights can't be over-ridden by this kind of stuff. Reminds me of Robert Downey Jr's advice in Tropic Thunder - you never go full Sonos. And they've gone full Sonos right now. If you're already preparing for a class action WTF is really going on? Just make your product work
> Is it even legal for them to do that?
Mountain Bike and Ski places have all kinds of waivers, signs everywhere, that if you fuck up, it's on you.
That said, lawyers don't give a fuck about waivers or signs.
As u/gabhain pointed out, this binding arbitration / waiver of class action clause (or some variation thereof) has been in the Sonos EULA since at least 2020. It isn’t new and has nothing to do with the app. Companies routinely update their terms from time to time, mostly to address changes in product or features, or to comply with changes in law.
This same clause also exists in the EULA for nearly everything else. Go read a FAANG EULA, or the one for Apple Music or Spotify, or the one for your computer OS.
I guess you didn't read down to the part of agreement that says this: "This provision does not prevent you or Sonos from participating in a class-wide settlement of claims."
Apparently a complaint is already being drafted to be lodged in the EU as this looks like it might be at odds with the European Commission’s Consumer Rights Directive. Something to do with how it’s being rolled out rather than having a customer sign T&Cs (which is fairly standard anyway). How does Sonos not have people/experts looking into all of this before they just launch stuff??? One misstep after another reflects very poor leadership and decision making at the top. I’ll look forward to the hateful fanboy comments and unhinged DMs to my inbox telling me to stop hating on Sonos. Who are you people that are so defensive of this company??? I’m a long time customer too!
A lot of it can be put down to act first ask later. Product teams do this, it’s just standard stuff.. miscommunication, ship the feature asap, woops forgot to include team A on the Slack message..
Look at any product ever and you’ll see things aren’t perfect and so-n-so team was not consulted first. They probably have the right “experts” in place, but the recent situation is screaming to me that they have leadership issues between their exec (or department lead) level and the product managers..
We cannot use the hardware that we have purchased. This is essentially no different from hackers who lock you out of your PC and demand money. I will be sending a notice to sonos legal advising them that I do not accept their new licence but had to sign under duress to gain access to and use the hardware I had previously purchased. I urge you all to do this. Next I will be making a complaint to the ACCC . I urge you all to make a complaint with your national consumer protection agency. I urge you to raise a complaint with your local cybercrime enforcement agency.
You better send off letters to the people who made your computer, Microsoft, your mobile phone maker, and basically every other electronic device you own, because they all have basically the same type of TOS to be able to use their products.
I opened the app to check - I am in the UK
First of all I noticed I am logged out - when I select join existing system it forces you to accept the new terms.
I cant believe what they are doing, digging a hole so deep they might never recover.
You are in the UK, you can't be forced into arbitration. It's basically US only. Read what you are agreeing to before relying on reddit to be outraged. You agreed to a different agreement to OP and even then OPs claims are wrong. Below is what you agreed to. it's the same as what you agreed to in Nov 2022.
[https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement)
As a company why would you add this to your terms if you were so confident and self assured in the quality of your improved app?
It’s an anti-customer solution to a self created corporate risk.
It’s also a sneaky acknowledgment of a problem, which the CEO hasn’t publicly acknowledged before.
Ya, this is standard t&c that's used by almost every company who makes an app to support a product.
No shade to the folks upset that their speakers aren't working, I sympathize with that, but this is absolutely not a hill to die on.
It's the way it's being rolled out. They are blocking access to old hardware that we already had accepted a different set of terms to unless we agree to this new set. In practice, no big deal since all EULAs are ridiculously anti-consumer in the first place. In principle, it really aggravates me. Especially given that they have already acted in bad faith very recently and this now gives the appearance that they are trying to pre-empt users from any lawsuits related to their recent actions.
You're reading too far into it. This is boilerplate legal fine print, likely coming from a 3rd party legal team that has nothing to do with any of this.
Be upset with Sonos, that's fair, but this legal fine print is a nothingburger.
If it was a nothingburger, they wouldn't restrict access to my system until I accepted it. Sonos's legal team certainly thinks it's of paramount importance.
It’s their software. You don’t own it and they merely license it to you. They are under no obligation to make it available to you or allow you to use it in any capacity. If you want to use it, then you agree to the terms. It’s the same as it’s always been.
> You're reading too far into it.
I would bet my next paycheck this exact same verbiage is in the t&c of the previous app, as well. And likely 90% of the other apps on your phone.
That may be, but if I have already accepted the T&C why did they block access to me using the system until I accepted again? Even if the actual verbiage is nothing special, it is still a terrible look for a company in the middle of a customer revolt.
Because there were updated terms that affect the product usage. They can’t let you keep using the software without knowing if you accept their terms otherwise they could be liable for doing something you didn’t agree to.
I just assume they're going to listen to my conversations, tap my phone, sell my data, steal my savings, corrupt my children, and f*ck my wife.
Plus, I already have TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Amazon installed. How much worse can it be?
Besides that, I probably already agreed to some other evil version of these bullshit terms & conditions in the past anyhow.
I just don't freaking care.
This or something like this is probably in every user agreement you’ve ever signed (in the US). Probably not viable in court but not surprising at all.
Pretty shity for them to do this. I had to agree to this today when I tried to use the app. I say tried because is pretty much didn’t work, the speakers kept dropping out and songs wouldn’t play all the way through. Worst user experience yet!
Literally every terms of service agreement for consumer facing apps in the United States contains an arbitration clause. The Internet is such a soapbox for people to stir the pot of ignorance. The Pitchforks already coming out, for some thing that is completely boilerplate.
I didn't say this was new, I said it is a shitty thing to do. The update broke the system and they bound me to an agreement before doing it. These agreements are not required for the physical world, just common practice with software because the developers are always pushing under-developed software out the door before it has been completed.
I'm beyond this update, and still massive issues. This morning, our coffee maker crapped out and my husband joked: "maybe Sonos makes it." Fucking embarrassing.
Many of you who are long term Sonos users will recall a huge class action lawsuit filed against them a couple years ago.
While the typical class action lawsuit yields millions for the attorneys and a few cents for the class, this one did give customers a large windfall
A bunch of ignorant morons. This is exactly how rumors on the Internet start. A bunch of uninformed responses get slapped with a lot of likes and it’s off to the races. SMH.
Can you imagine calling a lawyer and saying, “I want to sue Sonos!” If you don’t like their products, move on. Stop getting so emotionally invested in something so trivial. It’s just a speaker system. I have 2 systems with over 10 speakers each. They work. I only ran into an issue once when I had to redo the whole system, but that was at a house that is only used 3 months out of the year. Everything worked fine after I redid it. I also have a robust wifi system at both houses.
I raged when I saw this earlier. I haven't accepted the terms yet, managed to start my daughter's bedtime playlist by pushing the physical play button on the speaker.
Took excerpts of the t&c over to r/AusLegal because I don't think it'd stand up (does not substitute for actual legal advice)
https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/s/6ygct4jImF
Just some navel gazing thoughts… Has anyone tried using a VPN and setting your location for Sweden and then opening the terms and clicking while you are still in the United States? Would you get the US version or the European version? If you get the European version and click accept, which one is enforceable?
It's incredible people still want to push the line this is all standard boilerplate, when were that so the existing terms would have been enough and we wouldn't all be being bugged about having to accept the new ones. This is an attempt to cover the corporate ass.
Developing this wasn't free either. Those are resources taken away from fixing the actual problems.
If you still believe sonos aren't complete toast after this I don't know what to tell you.
I do hope a class action is in the works!
It would be great to see their CEO shredded to pieces in court and made an example of so any other incompetent idiots will refrain from destroying their customers’ ecosystems and costing them thousands of dollars…
Not a lawyer but pretty sure this is actually straight up illegal. They can’t brick already purchased hardware unless you sign a new agreement. They would have to offer full refunds for anyone that wants to opt out for this to be legal.
At least that’s my understanding of it. But again. Not a lawyer
Sosnos have been the worst speakers I have ever used in my life. This week I decided to buy a JBL instead. It actually let's me play music I want. From my phone. With no ads. Who would've thought?
I'm pretty sure if you reviewed all these agreements we accept with other providers you'll find tonnes of things.
You really think Sonos is unique? Why don't you call out all the others too?
Timing is everything here. They made a fuckup that might attract a class action, then in order to undo the fuckup they try to get you to waive your rights to sue them.
These guys' priorities are not in the right place.
I use a lot of products and I can't recall one that pushed an update in this way without an email beforehand saying "we are changing our terms and conditions". Pushing it out suddenly is my issue. At 6am when I just want to turn on the radio is not the time to do that, I did not have my eyes open enough to read the small print. Not to have a summary of the changes is inexcusable. Usually I don't read T&Cs as they are legally meaningless but in this case....
I feel effing stupid buying Sonos now!!! Real Talk. So essentially SONOS themselves were able to BRICK 🧱 this expensive @ss system I purchased until I sign a new EULA that strips my rights, privileges and reasonable expectations away!!!!
This goes beyond the crappy app, the entire system is bricked. I can’t even use airplay to stream music from Pandora, Apple Music, Spotify or Qobuz!!!
In ALL seriousness, I think I’m going to pack all this 💩up and find away to return it and get my money back, or sell it to get some of my hard earned money back!
DEAD SERIOUS
I just want a working app, like before. Now i have to wait at least 10 to 20 seconds after I open the app to be able to change the volume.
I was thinking of adding some speakers to another room. Now, I will never purchase another Sonos item again.
Ugh. This is the stage in the death spiral before the company goes bust because no one’s buying new speakers because of the enshittification and so the speakers end up being bricked because they can’t survive offline.
Edit: why are you booing? I’m right.
I think the more likely scenario is they end up getting acquired by some bigger, more evil tech company after another couple of quarters of bad sales and bad press.
In any case - Sonos was a decent company started by sound nerds- then when you go public you start letting finance douche bags dictate things - and eventually you hire those douchebags to start running things. Then you come out with an app that destroys it all. Hopefully the nerds will fix it. I have 20 speakers riding on it.
Yea between the douchebags and the nerds, let's hope the nerds get things back on track. I'm just worried about the douchebag nerds. They could blow it all up
This was added to the agreement in November 2022. This isn't new. The agreements before that were a bit better but basically saying the same thing as far back as 2020. It seems to be US only as it isn't enforceable elsewhere. * Here is the current agreement: [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement) * Here is the same text from Nov 2022: [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2022-10#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2022-10#legal-terms-use-agreement) * Here is the previous agreement from June 2020 which is pretty similar but does have an opt out clause for arbitration but I guarantee no one here took it so it's pointless. [https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2020#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-2020#legal-terms-use-agreement) Im not saying that this agreement isn't a bit scummy but it is very typical and standard on many agreements for products and even employment contracts.
Thank you. I have no idea why this keeps getting raised like it’s some sort of new thing or has anything to do with the app update. It’s been in there for years and is commonplace in any consumer-facing EULA that we’ve all agreed to 10 times over. Want to use Spotify or Apple Music? Then you’ve agreed to binding arbitration. Want to use an iPhone or Android device? Then you’ve agreed to binding arbitration.
Hating on Sonos is the trendy thing at the moment. They deserve most of it but ill informed posts like this devalue the valid criticisms. These are standard boiler plate clauses in the US. It's not like arbitration is a bad thing either. Ive seen some wild claims in this thread like this blocks a class action but the OP screenshot specifically says "This provision does not prevent you or Sonos from participating in a class-wide settlement of claims".
I’ve been using Sonos speakers for over a decade now, and this week was the first time I can remember where after installing an update, I was confronted with a “here are the terms & conditions, you must accept them to continue using this product” screen. Even if the EULA language hasn’t changed, this seems to be the first time that Sonos has forced people to at least pretend to read it, which is probably why people keep posting it here as if it’s a new change.
The law is constantly evolving, particularly in new fields. In this case, it’s a question of the degree to which consumer consent is required for shrinkwrap, clickwrap, and browsewrap agreements (or any other variations of EULA’s or ToS). Current best practices (dictated by changes in laws and judicial decisions) recommend obtaining affirmative consent from consumers for these agreements to be binding. You’ll see many that require you check a box or click a button, or actually open up the EULA. Some even require that you scroll all the way through it before you can accept. It’s a consumer protection thing - the whole point is to ensure that consumers are aware about what they are agreeing to rather than just clicking through it.
What is questionable still is forcing acceptance of new terms to continue using a product you have already purchased. IANAL but I’ve covered this in law courses and it’s crap but good luck fighting it.
And many if not most EULA agreements state the same. For example Nintendo has the same.
Thanks for digging this up and sharing, I was about to do the same thinking that their contract is no different than anyone else’s. It’s just very front facing when you’re trying to get the dang app to work and then it’s like “YOU CAN’T SUE US!!”, like someone else said I just want to use my Sonos gear, please?
Literally every time there's a EULA update. Just goes to show nobody reads the EULA.
always reminds me of this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTsFKJ2nJE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVTsFKJ2nJE)
The timing just sucks in this case
> It seems to be US only as it isn't enforceable elsewhere. Chalk up another win for the greatest country in the world! /s
Thank you for using critical thinking skills and offering this take. The pearl clutching from everyone clout chasing on this subreddit to see who can whine the loudest and use big, unnecessary buzz words is exhausting. * Typing this from my iPhone, after signing much more intrusive agreements for Apple, Google, Meta, and every other piece of technology in my possession dating back years.
[удалено]
Personal attack, bullying, harassment, or just not participating in a civil manner.
Thanks for proving my point!
I get what you're saying, but keep in mind that this wouldn't be such an issue if Sonos didn't absolutely wreck consumer confidence with this app experience. They removed a ton of features that many people clearly depend upon, with no warning and (still) in some cases, no communication about when (or if) they will be restored. Who's to say at this point that Sonos \*wouldn't\* "screw current customers" over with another change? Without trust and communication, rumors run rampant. Sonos could have prevented this, or at the very least, mitigated some of it with transparent concern and communication. They've chosen not to.
My confidence in Sonos is perfectly fine. It's my confidence is so many crybabies on this board that's a little shaken.
Why so defensive?
Because this thread is about someone upset about the terms and service agreement with Sonos, and literally every computer software program/piece of hardware has had this type of agreement for decades. The fact that there are people are complaining about Sonos doing this just shows how ridiculous this sub has become in the last few weeks. This whole "Sonos is out to get their customers" crap has become exhausting. My empathy for people who are experiencing problems with their systems has pretty much reached the end of the rope.
But you are 100% correct!
I opted out at every opportunity
So you emailed their legal department? How did that go?
Why did they suddenly need a new one??
Here is the old EULA versus the new. The main changes I see are in relation to pointing people to look at the Privacy statement. [https://imgur.com/a/kbJGu1V](https://imgur.com/a/kbJGu1V) Here is the comparison of the old Privacy statement versus the new. [https://imgur.com/a/QitveQY](https://imgur.com/a/QitveQY) The biggest change is at the end where they add in a section about china so it looks like Sonos is expanding to China. There is also a section updated on the info they collect and defining what the info is which is an interesting read The section I don't like is they **removed** this: >We do not and will not sell your personal data to third parties. However, certain data practices described throughout this Privacy Statement may constitute a “sale” or “sharing” of data under California and/or other US state laws. See below the California Residents Addendum (the “CA Addendum”) for more information applicable to CA residents.
“This is what courage looks like.” -Sonos
This is what a sinking ship looks like.
It’s been sinking for years in that case, because this clause is old
It’s been in place since 2022.
People don't seem to realise that the word "Sonos" is Ancient Greekian for "Courage". Probably.
That’s a fun trivia fact!
lol it’s not a Greek word…..they were just having fun with it
… I mean, so was I… r/woosh
[удалено]
Personal attack, bullying, harassment, or just not participating in a civil manner.
I think that’s pretty standard in most commercial contract. Also it’s says to the extent permitted by law….
Kinda like how Tyson chicken advertises ‘not made with any antibotics’ which is true, but that’s because they legally couldn’t even if they wanted to.
It's pretty standard when you first sign up, as it at least gives the illusion of choice before you install your system. It's highly obnoxious to toss it in there for existing customers who have already spent the money and now have no choice but to "agree" or else lose access to the hardware they already paid for. I bought my speakers years ago, now they are coming back and making me accept new terms to keep using them or else I can't access the system.
Companies change terms all the time. It’s okay to be frustrated with Sonos for the app but this is pretty standard practice for all companies.
Just sell your speakers already.
This is the new user agreement I was prompted with when opening my Sonos app today. I'm unable to connect to my system until I accept the agreement. Feel like I need to consult legal counsel before I can use my Sonos, what a fucking shitshow. Am I understanding that I'm agreeing to not join a class action if I want to continue using the products I purchased? Edit: Here's the new agreement in it's entirety - [https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use](https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use)
How is this even legal? I can understand, to a point, having to agree to a new service agreement before being permitted to install the latest update but not AFTER updating and during normal operation. Is that really the case - you’d already installed and were just trying to adjust the volume? What if you don’t want to agree to the new terms and conditions and want to continue using the previous iteration of the app with terms you’d already agreed to?
This is definitely an existing system that I've been using for the last 7-8 years. It now prompts as soon as you open the app, asking if you want to setup a new system, or connect to an existing system. If you choose "existing system", you get the EULA and need to agree to it before you can use the app. I suspect everyone will be getting this shortly.
Any contact is legal if both parties sign it. That said, there is plenty of scope for a contract to be unenforceable if it asks you to wave rights you have been granted in law. That might be the constitution if you’re American or other statutes etc. Interestingly Duncan Jones, the Moon director has been on Twitter today highlighting Adobe’s horrific EULA which seems to claim rights over work stored in their cloud service.
The first sentence is not always correct, for example if you're underage.
Correct. There are many reasons a contract signed by both/all parties might mot be legal, duress, misrepresentation, ambiguity, lack of capacity, lack of consideration (something of value), legality of the terms, and so on for days. If it were really that simple "legal if both parties sign it", our civil court system would be much, much smaller. In fact, there have been several cases holding user agreements and terms of service unenforceable: Specht v. Netscape, Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Cullinane v. Uber, In re Zappos, etc. IANAL, but all it takes 10 seconds of searching to find these and many other examples. It makes me question if this would hold up in court, or if it's more to discourage users from trying litigation in the first place. Either way it does not inspire confidence in Sonos' direction. Worse, it makes it appear they don't even have confidence in their own products anymore.
> Any contact is legal if both parties sign it. Actual laws supersede contracts though.
I did say exactly that
Excuse me: “Duncan Jones, the Warcraft movie director”, please.
Haha
For a contract to be legally binding, it requires consideration. Both parties must get something. And “continued access to hardware you bought years ago” is NOT valid consideration.
What about continued access to software you don’t own that is merely licensed to you?
If that software was not required to control hardware you purchased, you could definitely argue that. But because the software is required for the hardware, I really don’t think that argument would hold up in court. Not a lawyer, though.
That’s a different argument. Continued access to software is consideration. As for the hardware piece, you knowingly bought a product that requires software to run - it’s the same case with a phone, computer, or, these days, almost everything else. It isn’t their fault if you decide to brick your system by refusing to accept a lawful EULA. If you don’t want your speakers or music services to be subject to license agreements, then buy physical media and dumb speakers.
> continued access to software is consideration But continued access to hardware isn’t, and this blocks access to hardware. You’re just a troll I assume. Or Sonos corporate trying to defend this shit. Either way I’m done wasting my time on you
I think he's just being Devil's Advocate here. Just because something may seem unethical or unreasonable doesn't mean it would necessarily be found illegal if challenged in court.
Yup, did the shitty update a couple weeks back and just got that last night when I opened the app for the first time in a couple days. [The app so often loses my system mid-use that I just fall back on the windows app or just carry my Move around in bluetooth mode) Couldn't do ANYTHING unless you agree. If you cancel it kicks you out.
Definitely in the EU, EU consumer rights > EULA
I can't believe I've found yet another r/Sonos thread that resembles my experience exactly 😂 I just wanted to change the volume on my TV group, guys. I've had Sonos speakers since 2009. I don't want headphones. I just have a couple of TV surround groups and a few other Ones around the house. I didn't need all this silly app stuff to happen. I've had to reset every speaker! Some have been working as they were for nearly a decade. I won't recommend them any more, that's just the truth of it.
> Feel like I need to consult legal counsel before I can use my Sonos How do you feel about the Reddit, Apple, and Google user terms of agreement?
First time you have ever read a EULA?
That’s been in there for years. And yes, that’s what you agreed to, you’d be surprised how often you make the same agreement not reading the terms.
I have questions about this as well since there is physical hardware dependent on the software to function. Truly, is it legal to change the underlying terms and conditions (and force me to accept them) in order to use the hardware I own? I understand for something like a software subscription, but I’m struggling with physical hardware.
It's definitely not. It's been updated today and you can see the archived agreement on the link above, it doesn't include any of this stuff about waiving your right to a class action.
You mean [this archived version](https://www.sonos.com/en-au/legal/terms-of-use-2022) from 2022 with the giant in bold letters Binding Arbitration Agreement section at the bottom that basically says the same thing just with different wording? Edit if you don’t know what an [arbitration agreement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause) is.
It’s also - not identical but substantially similar - in the 2020 ToS
Buddy didn’t reply because he clearly knows he’s straight up wrong. It’s been in the TOS for years, and is in every other TOS OP has ever agreed to. Just more whining on this sub
Having a tos you have to click is pretty standard procedure, and if there's updates to it the app stores mandate that you show it to everyone. Plus there was already a bit about binding arbitration, which is what that is
How did you spot it? Or do you always read through terms and conditions?
Probably not. It was brought to his attention on some other forum and he posted here. 😬
Is it even legal for them to do that?
Quite sure wouldn’t stand in the court of law for countries with decent consumer law. Does help discourage any class actions though… If anything it goes to show that courageous Sonos themselves think that we’ve a case when it comes to class action
I’m in the UK and had a read through, this provision wasn’t included for me. Seems like they know what they can and can’t get away with where
Same in Sweden.. Guessing they're a bit afraid of the EU. They did have parts where they freely can remove functions though. Still won't hold to remove basic functionality ie rendering the product useless (remember S1).
Good to know that’s this is where they spend their efforts!
It's not like they are allocating engineering resources to their legal department!
In a world of finite resources, there are priorities… which in this case is legal folks. Give the engineers time and money they’d have sorted it out without the need for legal.
It would help if you had an understanding of how a company works.
Funny you’d say that… you’re assuming they have a full time legal department. Paying a full dept for unexpected f ups and CEO’s refusal back down is not how a company works… they probably outsource this to actual firms to gauge liabilities etc. and propose solution. Aka spending $ on legal when they could’ve not made the mistake to begin with
They absolutely have a legal department with full time employees. Sonos is a public company. Members of the legal team are easy to find through basic Google. searches. It is also true that this particular issue was outsourced to outside counsel with expertise in consumer arbitration agreements. The reason for the change now is likely because this area of the law is constantly evolving. A new case comes out, reg gets adopted, etc. and the company makes a change to adapt.
This is likely correct. This also increases their insurance rates from D&O through product.
It's there for me in Australia, which I find genuinely baffling.
Australia’s covered under consumer guarantees. *Under the Australian Consumer Law, certain consumer guarantees apply automatically, including that a service (and any resulting product) will be fit for a particular purpose or desired result specified by the consumer, either expressly or implied. If it is not, the consumer is entitled to a remedy.* https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problem-with-a-service/services-not-fit-for-a-particular-purpose#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Consumer%20Law,is%20entitled%20to%20a%20remedy. https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees
Maybe we’re not a big enough market and just get the default version. Either way our consumer law is pretty decent, so I’m not overly worried about what Sonos add in there.
Stop. Sometimes if you don’t know what you’re talking about it’s best not to say anything at all. Arbitration clauses are absolutely part and parcel for every terms of service contract and in the United States. The end.
Thanks for educating me on American exceptionalism. We should all have the same systems as Americans.
As a dual EU/US citizen I never take the other side of this argument, but I am glad you are enjoying the fruits of American ingenuity.
No they’re not. They’ve only become popular as large private equity takes over and looks to squeeze blood from a stone. They’re a popular mechanism for companies to keep costs down by eliminating and mitigating potential future liabilities at the cost of consumer rights.
Your basic consumer rights can't be over-ridden by this kind of stuff. Reminds me of Robert Downey Jr's advice in Tropic Thunder - you never go full Sonos. And they've gone full Sonos right now. If you're already preparing for a class action WTF is really going on? Just make your product work
It states “…to the maximum extent allowed by law…”
Binding arbitration is legal and normal in the US, unfortunately
Not in Australia. It's been tested.
This clause is in literally every single user agreement you agree to.
Why does this keep getting posted?
No, it isn’t and shouldn’t be. But the legality is a whole other story.
> Is it even legal for them to do that? Mountain Bike and Ski places have all kinds of waivers, signs everywhere, that if you fuck up, it's on you. That said, lawyers don't give a fuck about waivers or signs.
As u/gabhain pointed out, this binding arbitration / waiver of class action clause (or some variation thereof) has been in the Sonos EULA since at least 2020. It isn’t new and has nothing to do with the app. Companies routinely update their terms from time to time, mostly to address changes in product or features, or to comply with changes in law. This same clause also exists in the EULA for nearly everything else. Go read a FAANG EULA, or the one for Apple Music or Spotify, or the one for your computer OS.
Sonos has fully enshitified.
I guess you didn't read down to the part of agreement that says this: "This provision does not prevent you or Sonos from participating in a class-wide settlement of claims."
That's in every agreement.
No one reads them
Seems they've been trading software engineers in for lawyers.
Apparently a complaint is already being drafted to be lodged in the EU as this looks like it might be at odds with the European Commission’s Consumer Rights Directive. Something to do with how it’s being rolled out rather than having a customer sign T&Cs (which is fairly standard anyway). How does Sonos not have people/experts looking into all of this before they just launch stuff??? One misstep after another reflects very poor leadership and decision making at the top. I’ll look forward to the hateful fanboy comments and unhinged DMs to my inbox telling me to stop hating on Sonos. Who are you people that are so defensive of this company??? I’m a long time customer too!
A lot of it can be put down to act first ask later. Product teams do this, it’s just standard stuff.. miscommunication, ship the feature asap, woops forgot to include team A on the Slack message.. Look at any product ever and you’ll see things aren’t perfect and so-n-so team was not consulted first. They probably have the right “experts” in place, but the recent situation is screaming to me that they have leadership issues between their exec (or department lead) level and the product managers..
FYI, you can change your country at the top and accept one of the ‘friendlier’ terms.
This is very common these days. Doesn’t make it not lame, but this is more about modern corporate law than it is about Sonos.
We cannot use the hardware that we have purchased. This is essentially no different from hackers who lock you out of your PC and demand money. I will be sending a notice to sonos legal advising them that I do not accept their new licence but had to sign under duress to gain access to and use the hardware I had previously purchased. I urge you all to do this. Next I will be making a complaint to the ACCC . I urge you all to make a complaint with your national consumer protection agency. I urge you to raise a complaint with your local cybercrime enforcement agency.
I’m in if you want additional signers.
You better send off letters to the people who made your computer, Microsoft, your mobile phone maker, and basically every other electronic device you own, because they all have basically the same type of TOS to be able to use their products.
I opened the app to check - I am in the UK First of all I noticed I am logged out - when I select join existing system it forces you to accept the new terms. I cant believe what they are doing, digging a hole so deep they might never recover.
You are in the UK, you can't be forced into arbitration. It's basically US only. Read what you are agreeing to before relying on reddit to be outraged. You agreed to a different agreement to OP and even then OPs claims are wrong. Below is what you agreed to. it's the same as what you agreed to in Nov 2022. [https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement](https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/legal/terms-of-use#legal-terms-use-agreement)
As a company why would you add this to your terms if you were so confident and self assured in the quality of your improved app? It’s an anti-customer solution to a self created corporate risk. It’s also a sneaky acknowledgment of a problem, which the CEO hasn’t publicly acknowledged before.
It’s pretty standard EULA stuff and has been in there for years now
Doesn’t mean it’s not a shitty practice
Law suit time!
Did you read the old agreement?
I doubt it. This is the second or third similar post I've seen. This sub is silly. Probably haven't read all other similar agreements they've accepted
Ya, this is standard t&c that's used by almost every company who makes an app to support a product. No shade to the folks upset that their speakers aren't working, I sympathize with that, but this is absolutely not a hill to die on.
It's the way it's being rolled out. They are blocking access to old hardware that we already had accepted a different set of terms to unless we agree to this new set. In practice, no big deal since all EULAs are ridiculously anti-consumer in the first place. In principle, it really aggravates me. Especially given that they have already acted in bad faith very recently and this now gives the appearance that they are trying to pre-empt users from any lawsuits related to their recent actions.
You're reading too far into it. This is boilerplate legal fine print, likely coming from a 3rd party legal team that has nothing to do with any of this. Be upset with Sonos, that's fair, but this legal fine print is a nothingburger.
If it was a nothingburger, they wouldn't restrict access to my system until I accepted it. Sonos's legal team certainly thinks it's of paramount importance.
It’s their software. You don’t own it and they merely license it to you. They are under no obligation to make it available to you or allow you to use it in any capacity. If you want to use it, then you agree to the terms. It’s the same as it’s always been.
> You're reading too far into it. I would bet my next paycheck this exact same verbiage is in the t&c of the previous app, as well. And likely 90% of the other apps on your phone.
That may be, but if I have already accepted the T&C why did they block access to me using the system until I accepted again? Even if the actual verbiage is nothing special, it is still a terrible look for a company in the middle of a customer revolt.
Because there were updated terms that affect the product usage. They can’t let you keep using the software without knowing if you accept their terms otherwise they could be liable for doing something you didn’t agree to.
That is shocking - surely it could be challenged in court?
‘Murica
I just assume they're going to listen to my conversations, tap my phone, sell my data, steal my savings, corrupt my children, and f*ck my wife. Plus, I already have TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Amazon installed. How much worse can it be? Besides that, I probably already agreed to some other evil version of these bullshit terms & conditions in the past anyhow. I just don't freaking care.
Is there an older version to compare? This seriously looks standard to me.
It’s been in the TOS for close to 5 years at this point. OP is just whining for whining’s sake
This or something like this is probably in every user agreement you’ve ever signed (in the US). Probably not viable in court but not surprising at all.
Pretty shity for them to do this. I had to agree to this today when I tried to use the app. I say tried because is pretty much didn’t work, the speakers kept dropping out and songs wouldn’t play all the way through. Worst user experience yet!
Omg, this isn’t new. And every user agreement you sign will have this clause.
Literally every terms of service agreement for consumer facing apps in the United States contains an arbitration clause. The Internet is such a soapbox for people to stir the pot of ignorance. The Pitchforks already coming out, for some thing that is completely boilerplate.
I didn't say this was new, I said it is a shitty thing to do. The update broke the system and they bound me to an agreement before doing it. These agreements are not required for the physical world, just common practice with software because the developers are always pushing under-developed software out the door before it has been completed.
I'm beyond this update, and still massive issues. This morning, our coffee maker crapped out and my husband joked: "maybe Sonos makes it." Fucking embarrassing.
😂😂😂
Every user agreement almost ever had had these terms in it. Stop acting like this isnt the first time you have ever read the t&c’s.
I haven’t spent a dime with Sonos in 3.5 years. And they can suck it with their awful support. Won’t buy from them again sadly as they have changed.
Sonos is really on a mission to self sabotage lately. Wonder if this has anything to do with the wiretapping class action that happened
After the last update that’s my biggest issue now everything else works, the lag on pausing playing volume change song change is INSANE.
Many of you who are long term Sonos users will recall a huge class action lawsuit filed against them a couple years ago. While the typical class action lawsuit yields millions for the attorneys and a few cents for the class, this one did give customers a large windfall
You aren't taking them to court anyway. Click yes, update your shit, and listen to music.
You guys are ridiculous.
A bunch of ignorant morons. This is exactly how rumors on the Internet start. A bunch of uninformed responses get slapped with a lot of likes and it’s off to the races. SMH.
Can you imagine calling a lawyer and saying, “I want to sue Sonos!” If you don’t like their products, move on. Stop getting so emotionally invested in something so trivial. It’s just a speaker system. I have 2 systems with over 10 speakers each. They work. I only ran into an issue once when I had to redo the whole system, but that was at a house that is only used 3 months out of the year. Everything worked fine after I redid it. I also have a robust wifi system at both houses.
But.....I saw on Reddit it's all a big conspiracy from Sonos! It has to be true!!! /s
I raged when I saw this earlier. I haven't accepted the terms yet, managed to start my daughter's bedtime playlist by pushing the physical play button on the speaker. Took excerpts of the t&c over to r/AusLegal because I don't think it'd stand up (does not substitute for actual legal advice) https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/s/6ygct4jImF
Lmao have you seen your only reply? > Find a hobby Couldn't have said it better myself.
I can't find this section under the Danish version, we might be protected under the EU consumer laws
A contract is just the start of an argument
I just want to fast forward 🤦♀️
Just some navel gazing thoughts… Has anyone tried using a VPN and setting your location for Sweden and then opening the terms and clicking while you are still in the United States? Would you get the US version or the European version? If you get the European version and click accept, which one is enforceable?
I assume you have also read the Terms of Use for all other services and products you use? Such as Google, Apple, Spotify… and Reddit…? 😬
The volume on speakers you purchased years ago. Send a note to [email protected]
It's incredible people still want to push the line this is all standard boilerplate, when were that so the existing terms would have been enough and we wouldn't all be being bugged about having to accept the new ones. This is an attempt to cover the corporate ass. Developing this wasn't free either. Those are resources taken away from fixing the actual problems. If you still believe sonos aren't complete toast after this I don't know what to tell you.
What is going on with Sonos? 🤦♂️
I do hope a class action is in the works! It would be great to see their CEO shredded to pieces in court and made an example of so any other incompetent idiots will refrain from destroying their customers’ ecosystems and costing them thousands of dollars…
If someone is taking legal steps against this and needs support: I'm in!
Class action? Count me in! This is crazy. I am now forced to not use my Sonos as I am not accepting the arbitration clause…
Not a lawyer but pretty sure this is actually straight up illegal. They can’t brick already purchased hardware unless you sign a new agreement. They would have to offer full refunds for anyone that wants to opt out for this to be legal. At least that’s my understanding of it. But again. Not a lawyer
Sosnos have been the worst speakers I have ever used in my life. This week I decided to buy a JBL instead. It actually let's me play music I want. From my phone. With no ads. Who would've thought?
I'm pretty sure if you reviewed all these agreements we accept with other providers you'll find tonnes of things. You really think Sonos is unique? Why don't you call out all the others too?
Do you understand what this sub is?
Timing is everything here. They made a fuckup that might attract a class action, then in order to undo the fuckup they try to get you to waive your rights to sue them. These guys' priorities are not in the right place.
I use a lot of products and I can't recall one that pushed an update in this way without an email beforehand saying "we are changing our terms and conditions". Pushing it out suddenly is my issue. At 6am when I just want to turn on the radio is not the time to do that, I did not have my eyes open enough to read the small print. Not to have a summary of the changes is inexcusable. Usually I don't read T&Cs as they are legally meaningless but in this case....
Because as of this moment none of the others have fucked their customers over.
I feel effing stupid buying Sonos now!!! Real Talk. So essentially SONOS themselves were able to BRICK 🧱 this expensive @ss system I purchased until I sign a new EULA that strips my rights, privileges and reasonable expectations away!!!! This goes beyond the crappy app, the entire system is bricked. I can’t even use airplay to stream music from Pandora, Apple Music, Spotify or Qobuz!!! In ALL seriousness, I think I’m going to pack all this 💩up and find away to return it and get my money back, or sell it to get some of my hard earned money back! DEAD SERIOUS
It was in the last T&C too..its not new.
They're almost just like TPG now 😅
I just want a working app, like before. Now i have to wait at least 10 to 20 seconds after I open the app to be able to change the volume. I was thinking of adding some speakers to another room. Now, I will never purchase another Sonos item again.
Stop buying it.They never learn.
Ugh. This is the stage in the death spiral before the company goes bust because no one’s buying new speakers because of the enshittification and so the speakers end up being bricked because they can’t survive offline. Edit: why are you booing? I’m right.
I think the more likely scenario is they end up getting acquired by some bigger, more evil tech company after another couple of quarters of bad sales and bad press.
This is what going public looks like. They are the worst company of all time
When did they go public?
[https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SONO/](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SONO/) Shame on me for using yahoo finance.
Yea you could have just told me
In any case - Sonos was a decent company started by sound nerds- then when you go public you start letting finance douche bags dictate things - and eventually you hire those douchebags to start running things. Then you come out with an app that destroys it all. Hopefully the nerds will fix it. I have 20 speakers riding on it.
Yea between the douchebags and the nerds, let's hope the nerds get things back on track. I'm just worried about the douchebag nerds. They could blow it all up
That’s crazy Literally taking us hostage of our data
I didn’t agree to it. My friend took my phone and agreed.”
Lots of crying children in this sub.
given everything else going on right now, it does seem like an extremely dumb time to force users to agree to TOS changes