This is a California state court case that could drastically change the landscape for Free and Open Source Software moving forward. And particularly that FOSS that is covered by Copylefted licenses like the GPL family of licenses.
The premise of the case is that by selling smart TVs with only the compiled version of GPL'd (and likely forked) code projects such as the Linux kernel, BusyBox, selinux, ffmpeg, etc, Vizio is blatantly violating the "Source Code Provision" of the GPL which requires that they provide along with this compiled code, also the source code or failing that a written offer of source code to any recipients of these compiled versions of these GPL'd applications and libraries.
(Now, of course, anyone can get the source code of the Linux kernel or BusyBox or any of the other applications at issue. But in the process, Vizio and their manufacturers have written kernel drivers for the hardware specifically on the TVs (which are derivative works of the Linux Kernel and therefore covered by the GPL), and probably made modifications to several of the other codebases in order to make them do novel things specifically for the smart TVs in question. Beyond that, the GPL requires Vizio to provide any programs/scripts/signing-keys/etc to compile and install the source code (or a, say, consumer-modified version of the source code) onto the TVs. It's the Vizio-specific/chip-manufacturer-specific modifications/derivative works and compiling/installing code that's most important.)
The "Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio Inc." case is seeking to force Vizio to comply with the GPL. Assuming the SFC is successful and the courts rule in their favor, the eventual result is expected to be a fully FOSS OS "distribution" (of, basically, GNU/Linux) that end users can install on their Vizio TVs in place of the factory-installed OS. This FOSS OS distribution, of course, would allow users to remove ads and other antifeatures from the TVs in question. And over time, it's highly probable that this FOSS OS smart TV distribution would expand to other models and brands of TVs. Roughly speaking, the goal of this lawsuit is to be able to create an "OpenWRT but for smart TVs."
But this case could definitely affect the industry not just for smart TVs. Smart phones, game consoles, automobiles, robot vacuum cleaners, sex toys. So many consumer electronics devices run on, for instance, the Linux or Android kernel (both of which are covered by the GPL). And a lot of these devices also include many other programs and libraries covered by the GPL. There's potential for lots of different "OpenWRT but for " sort of distributions. And if SFC v. Vizio succeeds, it could greatly increase the likelihood of all of these coming to fruition.
Vizio has been stalling for strategic reasons. But there's a court date set for 2025-09-22. My understanding is that there will be options to watch a live stream of it via Zoom for Business. (Yes, it's proprietary, unfortunately.) You can even apply for a grant to travel to California to attend the hearing in person (though I think that's kinda mostly for bloggers and journalists and such). Also, a lot of court documents about the case are linked on the page I linked in this post.
Ok. Time for a bit of legal nerd stuff. (IANAL, not legal advice, etc.) Previous GPL enforcement cases have been copyright cases brought by the copyright holders. This case is novel in that it's a contract case. There's a legal concept of a "third-party beneficiary" to a contract. If Alice and Bob make a contract that requires Alice to pay Charlie $100, then Charlie is a third-party beneficiary and thus can bring a suit for enforcement against Alice. In this case, copyright holders of GPL'd code made a contract (the GPL) with Vizio that requires Vizio to make sure anyone they distribute compiled GPL'd code to can get the source code (and compiling/installing scripts etc), so anyone Vizio sells a TV to is a third-party beneficiary and therefore can bring a suit against Vizio to get the court to force Vizio to hold up their obligations under the GPL. At least that's the legal theory under which SFC is bringing the suit.
If you want more info about this, this YouTube video is a panel of SFC folks doing a Q&A specifically about the Vizio case. It'll have some interesting tidbits of info.
I'm hopeful, and the courts have been sympathetic to the SFC's arguments so far. I'm crossing my fingers for sure.
Not yet. You still need some semblance of an argument. Although now that I'm thinking about it, antitrust or something might be enough.