When you turn on the TV, you have to watch the screen advertisement, you can't skip; if you want to watch a TV series, you have to open a member of the gold and platinum. When you open the membership, you will find that the children and sports channel you want to watch will be charged.The APP and the APP in the TV screen are obviously a platform, but consumers are required to pay the money twice.

Especially in the past few days, iQiyi was pushed to the outlet of public opinion because of restricting the screen.At present, a user in Guangdong will sue iQiyi to the Beijing Internet Court, and the court has already filed a case.The user said that no compensation is required, as long as Iqiyi cannot limit the clarity of the screen in any way.Previously, iQiyi had just been named by the Shanghai Consumer Consumer Commission.

In addition, consumers use the same iQiyi's account to log in to the three different devices and be banned at the same time, and the explanation given by iQiyi is a technical failure.

The problem of using smart TVs is more and more vomiting.Obviously, under the blessing of science and technology, the TV we spent money increasingly could not help but be the master, but to become a gold -sucking props carefully arranged by the merchant.In the pocket.

Different from the traditional TV machine model, today's smart TV has opened a blue ocean and is also breeding emerging business models.However, it is impossible to empower home video entertainment with information. It cannot become a unilateral barbarous growth and harvesting of the enterprise. It cannot use a commercial innovation. Market choices cover up the infringement of consumer rights and interests behind this.

In 2020, the Beijing Internet Court made a judgment, and the advance payment on demand of iQiyi constituted a breach of contract.Since then, major video platforms have officially canceled advanced on -demand.In 2021, the Jiangsu Higher People's Court also made a judgment: Smart TV's start -up advertisement must be able to close it with one click.

The above two courts with benchmarking significance indicate that some business models in the smart TV ecosystem cannot be legally unbearable and illegal.It is also reversed that consumers, especially consumer rights protection organizations, must actively come out to protect their rights and promote the toll routine through litigation.

The right to know, the right to choose, and the right to trade is the basic rights and interests of the consumer rights protection law. The product can be updated and the business model can be innovated, but it cannot become a clever name and hard wool for consumers.

From the perspective of informed consent, I am dominated by my TV, and TV manufacturers cannot turn consumers' TVs into their own advertising screen without the consumer without consent.

From the perspective of the overlord clauses invalid, the provisions of the operator's serious deprivation of consumer rights in the format terms are invalid.

From the principles of honesty and trustworthiness of the contract law, the operator cannot be reversed. First, the consumer is packed through membership charges, and then the consumer uses the functions of normal use of screens.

The ecology of smart TVs has given merchants more innovative space and has more initiative. However, the innovation of any business model should be based on respecting consumer rights, otherwise it may step on the lawRed line.Consumers and the Consumer Protection Commission also actively protect their rights and say no to the toll routine of smart TVs.