Slashdot Mirror
General Mills Retracts "No Right to Sue" EULA Clause
Just a few days after General Mills changed its policies to declare that people who so much as "liked" their page on Facebook thereby waived their right to sue the company in favor of arbitration, the company has reversed itself:
"The announcement resulted in huge backlash on social media, as well as from consumer groups. Legal experts expressed doubts it could ever be enforced. Hamline Law Professor David Schultz appeared on WCCO Sunday Morning.
“When I first saw this earlier this week I said this is questionable at best from a legal point of view,” he said. “From a marketing point of view, it’s a dumb idea, too, but legally it didn’t rest on very sound grounds so it’s not a surprise that they are reversing it. The lawyers at General Mills should have known better.”
This is the kind of thing that happens when lawyers aren't kept on a short enough leash. They can't stop regurgitating into the legal documents they produce and you end up with this kind of complete and total stupidity. If the company really wants to save face they should fire the entire lot of them. Unless the executives are that afraid of the litigious cretins.
Better known as 318230.
Consumers need to be vigilant about this kind of crap. Sure general mills pulled back this time, but all that means is that next time they'll be more subtle, going for something that's less of a reach, and this kind of shit will slowly start encroaching on us. (See also SOPA type nonsense.)
We'll as an outsider - non USA - this seems to me to be a demonstration of how powerful the internet is ie, forums like slashdot, social media, email, etc. Who in their right mind would think that they could sneak in a clause that takes away already recognised rights, without VERY public and international comment. Geez, who ever hired those lawyers needs to be fired on the spot, and the company needs to hire another firm of bottom feeders.
Float a trial balloon. Heat up the water in the pot a little bit more. Turn the screws. If the population squeaks, just back off a bit and try again later. Eventually they will get what they want. What are *you* going to do about it?
"... when lawyers aren't kept on a short enough leash"
Here is a typical joke about lawyers in the United States: There was a terrible tragedy. A van carrying 5 lawyers went over a cliff. What was the tragedy? There was room for 1 more lawyer.
The common underlying feeling is that the legal profession in the U.S. is often out of control.
This is interesting: What country in the world has most lawyers per capita? Answer: The United States. There is one lawyer for every 265 Americans.
This reminds me of those signs you sometimes see in car parks "the owners will not be held responsible for any damage to your vehicle." I am reliably informed that this is not true in all cases. If, for example, the owners fail to maintain equipment or the building adequately and you can attribute cause of damage to their dereliction of duty they can be held responsible. Putting up signs does not usurp consumer rights.
By reading this post, you agree to send me $100.
Cheers.
I have never been one for a lot of government intervention. However this is a prime example of the fact that it really has it's place. Sure, it's all well and good that General Mills has backed down. But there's nothing to say that you'll not see this stunt pulled again in the future. All it's going to take is corporation to decide they'll do better by using this tactic against it's customers than they'll loose from the public backlash.
Better to put out a grass fire in your yard with a hose than to wait for the fire department to show up to try and save what's left of your house.
The difference is that those EULAs are license agreements for software (including the pre-installed software that comes on your new hardware) and there is precedent for it being legal to put those clauses in software EULAs.
You are confusing two things. "It is legal to put those clauses into EULAs" means "you can't go to jail for putting these clauses into EULAs". That doesn't mean that such a clause has any legal merit whatsoever. What _is_ legal and enforcable in EULAs are terms that allow you or disallow you making copies of software. Because that's what EULAs are about; they give you rights to copy software and can of course limit what rights they give you. A clause that prevents customers from going to court - good luck trying to enforce that.
Often, you have to 'like' their pages on Facebook in order to participate in contests and the like. People love the possibility of getting free stuff, so they happily click 'like' to enter the contest, and then forget about it moments later.
Somebody obviously saw this as a sneaky way of possibly getting their customers to actively sign away their right to sue.
Eat the rich.
Just because someone puts something in a contract, and even if you "agree" to it by signing it (or even ACTUALLY agree with that line of the contract, which is something else entirely), it does NOT mean that it's automatically legally enforceable.
Some rights cannot be signed away. Ever. Even if you want to. If you've ever read "This does not affect your statutory rights", it's an acknowledgement of this (and, in fact, they don't even need to say that - because not saying it wouldn't affect those rights either!).
And "Can not sue" clauses generally don't exist in a vast majority of jurisdictions around the world. Because firstly, they are stupid. Secondly, they are unfair. And thirdly, they are not (generally) legally enforceable anyway.
If you ever thought otherwise, just replace whatever line with "I agree to be killed". Just because you sign it, just because you want it to happen, does NOT mean that the other party in the contract is able to do it to you.
It doesn't mean that nothing is enforceable, but stupid shit like this has nothing to do with the company "backing down"... they just asked a lawyer and realised that they couldn't actually enforce that clause anyway, and they risk large swathes of the same contract being revoked because of such unfair clauses that might come under similar scrutiny.
Don't be stupid and sign away your rights, but equally don't assume that you CAN sign away such rights either. Especially where "like" on Facebook means you can't sue... sorry, ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS, and would be thrown out of any court.
"The lawyers at General Mills should have known better.”"
What they mean is: the lawyers should have written it more obscurely so they didnt get caught
I find it amusing (and useless) that they are now complaining that the language was "mis-characterized" The language was quite clear, as far as legalese goes.
If anything, the media has been too easy on them, calling the language "routine" in other industries and stating that the only difference is General Mills is first packaged foods company to try mandatory arbitration clauses. This language isn't routine at all! I don't know any other company that forces you to accept a mandatory arbitration clause where interacting with the website magically prevents you from suing them over something about a product you bought in a store. If the clause just applied to the website itself, it would be routine; but trying to apply it to all other interactions with the company? I don't think so.
The initial change was stupid and tone-deaf, but they are now "doubling-down" and trying to pretend it doesn't mean exactly what it said. The sad part is, even if nobody believes this corporate double-speak, instead of agitating to have the ridiculous arbitration laws changed, people will just shrug their shoulders and ignore the problem some more.
Even if the language was enforceable (a Facebook Like? Probably not... a coupon download? Borderline, but may only be enforceable for the item purchased with the coupon), ridiculous contract clauses are all about creating obstacles to a lawsuit. You are absolutely correct that no judge is going to remove complete and total lawsuit rights because a consumer once went to the General Mills website to check nutrition information.
But that's not going to stop their lawyers from trying; they'll first issue an intrusive subpeona for the consumer's computers, pointing towards the clause as their need for the information. If the subpeona is not quashed, then they'll lob a Motion to Dismiss, pointing towards the clause. When the judge laughs it out of court, they'll appeal. When the appeal is denied, they'll bring it up again in a Motion for Summary Judgement. If they lose whatever it is the trial is actually about, they'll bring up in appeal.
All this is meant to create more work for the plaintiff's lawyer. Since most product liability cases are brought on a contingency basis, any additional hours spent on the case cut into the lawyer's profit margin. Create too much paperwork, and the consumer will never find a lawyer to take the case to begin with.
Then treat them like one.
Oh, X corporation is responsible for the deaths of X people? Looks like a serial killer to me, execute the corporation.
Okay, I have often heard this call for a corporate death penalty. However, how do you envision this would work? Despite the twisted perspective of the courts, corporations are nothing more than the real, human people who own them and work for them.
If punishment is due, then who should it be incident upon? The stockholders, like your local firefighters' pension fund who owns many shares of this condemned corporation? No? Well, shall it be broken up and sold off instead? Fine, the current owners will form a new shell corporation to asset strip the condemned corporation by buying its assets cheaply and leaving the debts behind in the "executed" corporation. Congratulations, the wealthy owners got richer as a consequence of the "punishment". Shall the corporation be taken over by the government and the owners forfeit the shares? Now the government has a moral hazard... all those profitable corporations look mighty guilty of "crimes" if we are debating having to raise unpopular taxes.
I say hold the executives responsible for what their underlings do, and don't allow plausible deniability to be claimed by execs who should know what is happening. We can't legislate morality into sociopaths, but we *can* make them fear incarceration for wrongdoing. *That* would go a long way toward increasing ethical action by corporations. Of course, it will never happen, but at least the incentives are aligned to punish those who are responsible with this proposal, whereas the corporate death penalty invariably would punish the hapless "little guy" shareholders (i.e. the wealthy would circumvent the effects).