Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue

sandbagger (654585) writes "The New York Times reports that General Mills, the maker of cereals like Cheerios and Chex as well as brands like 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, or 'join' it in social media communities. Who'd have imagined that clicking like requires a EULA?"

Comments

The power of EULAs only goes so far

[kruach aum]

They could also write in that if I click 'like' on a cereal facebook page I would have to kill myself, but that doesn't make it legally binding.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far

[tompaulco]

Indeed. Good luck arguing in court that someone gave up their right to sue. The legal profession tends to be awfully sceptical of such measures, and none more so than judges. While it might stand up if, for example, all parties agreed to use some reasonable form of binding arbitration instead, it's hard to imagine the big company would get anywhere against the little customer under these conditions.

Like locks on a door, this is only to deter the casual litigant. It wouldn't stand up in court, but if someone was to express an interest in suing, GM would reply with "you signed a document saying you wouldn't", and that would be good enough for 99% of the brainless slugs.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far

[Anonymous Coward]

...GM would reply with "you signed a document saying you wouldn't", and that would be good enough for 99% of the brainless slugs.

How is clicking Like akin to "signing a document"?
Does clicking Like make a EULA popup for you to read?
Does it even notify you that you agree to it's terms on some webpage?
They would have to argue that anyone clicking like on anything would assume that they agree to something, which I don't think will hold up.

What wonderful customer relations.
You click "Like" and they respond with "Fuck You!"

This isn't news...

[Ziggitz]

Until we hear about this actually holding up in court, which I highly doubt it will. Large companies are preemptively covering their asses in any way they can by flinging shit against the wall and seeing what sticks. I imagine that they've done this in several other ways that also wouldn't be likely to stand up in court, but if any one method does, then the payoff is huge so it makes sense to do it.

Re:so?

[Penguinisto]

They don't pay as much for for preferential treatment as the other guys. Their only need for lobbying is to ensure farm subsidies are as high as possible to force down the market price for grain.

Actually, the best way to force prices for grain downwards is to *remove* government subsidies, since most of them go towards paying farmers to limit their harvest output, thereby keeping per-bushel prices high.

Same with any other non-processed food item - dump the subsidies, and farmers will have to increase production to make up for it. This in turn will force prices down for those food items.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That

[zippthorne]

...What you're probably thinking of is "ignorance of the law is no excuse"...

Which is it's own level of BS when you think about it. It's predicated on the idea that you're responsible for making yourself aware of the law, so that you won't violate it in ignorance. But today's body of law is so great that I'm not sure it's possible for a person to read it all within a single lifetime, let alone piece together all of the cross links and understand everything that applies to you.

The authors and passers of the law bear some responsibility for violations when the law is so verbose and numerous as to be an impediment to understanding.