Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

Sorry for the crappy thread title.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...e-voids-your-right-to-sue-20140418-zqw5q.html

General Mills, the maker of cereals such as Cheerios and Chex as well as brands such as Bisquick and Betty Crocker, has quietly added language to its website to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons, "join" it in online communities such as Facebook, enter a company-sponsored sweepstakes or contest or interact with it in a variety of other ways.

Instead, anyone who has received anything that could be construed as a benefit and who then has a dispute with the company over its products will have to use informal negotiation via email or go through arbitration to seek relief, according to the new terms posted on its site.

In language added on Tuesday after it was contacted about the changes, General Mills seemed to go even further, suggesting that buying its products would bind consumers to those terms.

"We've updated our privacy policy," the company wrote in a thin, grey bar across the top of its home page. "Please note we also have new legal terms which require all disputes related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved through binding arbitration."

The change in legal terms, which occurred shortly after a judge refused to dismiss a case brought against the company by consumers in California, made General Mills one of the first, if not the first, major food companies to seek to impose what legal experts call "forced arbitration" on consumers.

"Although this is the first case I've seen of a food company moving in this direction, others will follow – why wouldn't you?" said Julia Duncan, director of federal programs and an arbitration expert at the American Association for Justice, a trade group representing plaintiff trial lawyers. "It's essentially trying to protect the company from all accountability, even when it lies, or say, an employee deliberately adds broken glass to a product."

General Mills declined to make anyone available for an interview about the changes.

"While it rarely happens, arbitration is an efficient way to resolve disputes – and many companies take a similar approach," the company said in a statement. "We even cover the cost of arbitration in most cases. So this is just a policy update, and we've tried to communicate it in a clear and visible way."

A growing number of companies have adopted similar policies over the years, especially after a 2011 Supreme Court decision, AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, that paved the way for businesses to ban consumers claiming fraud from joining together in a single arbitration. The decision allowed companies to forbid class-action lawsuits with the use of a standard-form contract requiring that disputes be resolved through the informal mechanism of one-on-one arbitration.

Credit card and mobile phone companies have included such limitations on consumers in their contracts, and in 2008, the magazine Mother Jones posted a story about a Whataburger fast-food restaurant that hung a sign on its door warning customers that simply by entering the premises, they agreed to settle disputes through arbitration.

Last year, General Mills paid $US8.5 million to settle lawsuits over positive health claims made on the packaging of its Yoplait Yoplus yogurt, saying it did not agree with the plaintiff's allegations but wanted to end the litigation. In December 2012, it agreed to settle another suit by taking the word "strawberry" off the packaging label for Strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups, which did not contain strawberries.

General Mills amended its legal terms after a judge in California on March 26 ruled against its motion to dismiss a case brought by two mothers who contended that the company deceptively marketed its Nature Valley products as "natural" when they contained processed and genetically engineered ingredients.

"The front of the Nature Valley products' packaging prominently displays the term '100% Natural' that could lead a reasonable consumer to believe the products contain only natural ingredients," wrote the district judge, William H. Orrick.

He wrote that the packaging claim "appears to be false" because the products contain processed ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup and maltodextrin.

Arbitration experts said courts would probably require General Mills to prove that a customer was aware of its new policy before issuing decisions denying legal action against the company.

The policy is so broadly written, lawyers say, that it is likely to raise interesting legal questions.

For instance, on Tuesday an order was placed through the company's online store for a Cheerios bowl, before General Mills posted a notice about the change to its legal terms on its home page.

At no point did the order system suggest changes had been made to the legal terms governing the buyer. It offered a link to the company's privacy policy, and two opt-out boxes for receiving promotional materials through email.

Whether a court would rule that, under the new policy, the buyer of the bowl could not sue General Mills was unclear, since the company's home page now included a message about the changes it had made to its legal terms.

"A transaction has taken place that, according to General Mills, includes an agreement to submit to informal negotiation or arbitration in the event of a dispute," Nelson said.

He said he did not think a court would agree to enforce the policy if a consumer merely visited a General Mills website, "but we really don't know".

"You can bet," he said, "there will be some subpoenas for computer hard drives in the future."

Uh huh.

Edit: Never mind, crisis averted:

They've changed them back:

http://www.blog.generalmills.com/20...nging-our-legal-terms-back-to-what-they-were/

 

[tokyostomp]

Damn.

Time to blacklist General Mills.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Suing General Mills now

 

[Aylinato]

Does that mean actual people can make it so you can't sue them by liking them on Facebook or visiting their Facebook profile?

 

[Dead Man]

Does that mean actual people can make it so you can't sue them by liking them on Facebook or visiting their Facebook profile?

Copying General Mills text to my FB profile now.

 

[Trumpet909]

They've changed them back:

http://www.blog.generalmills.com/20...nging-our-legal-terms-back-to-what-they-were/

As has been widely reported, General Mills recently posted a revised set of Legal Terms on our websites. Those terms – and our intentions – were widely misread, causing concern among consumers.

So we’ve listened – and we’re changing them back to what they were before.

We rarely have disputes with consumers – and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled. Many companies do the same, and we felt it would be helpful.

But consumers didn’t like it.

So we’ve reverted back to our prior terms. There’s no mention of arbitration, and the arbitration provisions we had posted were never enforced. Nor will they be. We stipulate for all purposes that our recent Legal Terms have been terminated, that the arbitration provisions are void, and that they are not, and never have been, of any legal effect.

That last bit is from our lawyers.

We’ll just add that we never imagined this reaction. Similar terms are common in all sorts of consumer contracts, and arbitration clauses don’t cause anyone to waive a valid legal claim. They only specify a cost-effective means of resolving such matters. At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood.

Not that any of that matters now.

On behalf of our company and our brands, we would also like to apologize. We’re sorry we even started down this path. And we do hope you’ll accept our apology. We also hope that you’ll continue to download product coupons, talk to us on social media, or look for recipes on our websites.

Our legal terms? You’ll find them right on our website. You’ll also find they’re back to what they always were.

- See more at: http://www.blog.generalmills.com/20...-back-to-what-they-were/#sthash.slacJihx.dpuf

 

[Dead Man]

They've changed them back:

http://www.blog.generalmills.com/20...nging-our-legal-terms-back-to-what-they-were/

Hah, good to see.

 

[SwiftDeath]

#NoCheeriosDRM WON!!!!

WE DID IT GUYS!!!

 

[TheAbsolution]

Damn.

Time to blacklist General Mills.

Yup. Don't eat their cereals all that much. Will have to check out what else they make that I eat.

Edit: That was quick.

 

[ramuh]

#NoCheeriosDRM WON!!!!

WE DID IT GUYS!!!

Whew a hard fought victory. But a good one! Go NOanythingDRM!

 

[PInk Tape]

Of course consumers wouldn't of liked it because it's something that benefits you and you alone. So don't act so surprised if people were threatening to protest your product because of that stupid rule you almost implemented.

 

[FStop7]

I wonder if that would actually stand up in court. I kind of doubt it.

 

[Calamari41]

It's not like this was enforceable, anyway. Just because something is in a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding. Especially when one side doesn't even sign anything.

 

[Valtýr]

It's not like this was enforceable, anyway. Just because something is in a contract doesn't mean it's legally binding. Especially when one side doesn't even sign anything.

Basically. Stuff like this is really meant to scare people into thinking they can't. It's by legally binding.

 

[cDNA]

I always knew that multiracial family commercial was really a trap.

 

[odiin]

Post 25 in this thread legally has to come to my house and give me a blow job, or I'm legal able to seize all your property and assets. It's true because it's in writing.

 

[Bboy AJ]

arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled.

Oh, give me a break. Streamlined for you while not setting any binding precedents. Fuck off.

 

[KevinRo]

I never understood the legality of signing away your right to sue.

 

[TAJ]

I never understood the legality of signing away your right to sue.

I'm fine with it when someone wants to do something dangerous on your property and you don't mind as long as there's no lawsuit when they break every bone in their body.

 

[Alphahawk]

How would the facebook thing even work? Facebook liking is automatic. I don't ever have to look at Cheerios terms of service to like it, much less agree with it. The whole point of an arbitration clause is to say that you voluntary give up your right to sue, it doesn't work because someone magically writes a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo.