It's still a contract between the copyright holder and the redistributor, not between the redistributor and anyone in the world.
It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people.
I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed.
Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.
Sure, in this case Conservancy aren't a party to the GPL contract, but as a recipient of GPLed binary code from Vizio they are a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Vizio and copyright holders.
Actually Conservancy also are representatives of copyright holders in Linux and other software used on Vizio devices. So if they lose the third-party beneficiary suit, there will be a copyright angle they can pursue as well.
GPL lawsuits aren't about hardware repair, they are about software repair and the rights given to end-users by the GPL license/contract. You don't need source code to replace broken components on a tractor, you need repairer/vendor software that performs pairing of DRM-locked parts.
It's also not a contract between the distributor and the person receiving a copy from them, since contracts can't be automatically assigned to pieces of property, they must happen between people.
I very much doubt the SFC's case will succeed. I fully expect that they will be found not to have any standing to sue as someone who is in no way a party of the GPL. By the way, it's obvious that it wouldn't be tried by a copyright court, as the SFC claims no copyright over the code in question. I expect that the lower court will now confirm that they have no standing under contract law either, and the case will be dismissed.
Note that I fully support the idea of a right to repair. I just don't think it can be achieved in this way, and believe instead it must be enshrined in legislation and state regulations, not crafty uses of copyright law.