When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue

Might downloading a 50-cent coupon for Cheerios cost you legal rights?

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, “join” it in online communities like 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.

When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue

​Consumers may be barred from suing General Mills for ‘liking’ company on Facebook.

Under a new privacy policy, Fortune 500 corporation General Mills claims that anyone who has received anything from it that can be deemed a benefit – even agreeing to “like” it on Facebook – withdraws rights to sue the company.

Last year, General Mills shelled out $8.5 million to settle lawsuits regarding health claims made on its Yoplait Yoplus yogurt product.

Arbitration experts say that, amid a legal challenge, the court system will likely require General Mills to prove a customer was cognizant of its arbitration policy before siding with the company. But the policy is mapped out so broadly that, lawyers have said it is difficult to know how courts will interpret it.

What is this world coming to where the rights of the corporations supersede the rights of a person.

This should make everyone think twice before liking a company brand on Facebook or even following them on Twitter. This really should be "Social Media Suicide" for big companies as everyone should leave on mass.

reply to post by flammadraco

That's some BS right there, it would not stand in civil cases.

Let's say you like a product, Cheerios for instance, in January... then you open a new box of them in February and there are three dead mice in the package. I dare say the former 'like' has no standing.

butcherguy
reply to post by flammadraco

 

That's some BS right there, it would not stand in civil cases.

Let's say you like a product, Cheerios for instance, in January... then you open a new box of them in February and there are three dead mice in the package. I dare say the former 'like' has no standing.

Whilst I agree with you, their new policy states that you have to enter into arbitration with them either via email or one to one.

I don't see how this is legal. Then again, courts uphold the licenses on games and software, so I can see them also upholding this.

reply to post by flammadraco

Legally binding or not, that's a slimy corporate asshole in full flow.

It's the cynical attempt that says more about them than any plans to use it in court. Ideally, people should protest by buying someone else's products and refusing to use their websites. The world just doesn't work like that does it? Pity...

I was listening to this story being reported on my local radio while I was reading the OP and I thought this had to be misrepresented in some way. I was wrong. Here is the new legal terms from the General Mills website:

General Mills Legal Terms

I don't see how this can be legal. I know that agreements like this exist between entities that do a lot of business with each other or have an employer/employee relationship but in the instances I've seen you've got one party agreeing to give up certain rights in return for something of substantial value. General Mills has lost their mind if they think a 'like' or a coupon of minimal value puts them in that neighborhood. Think about what this means beyond General Mills.

If this stands as legal it means that everything you do or say on Facebook, or anywhere else online, would be deemed by our courts to be true.

It means that anyone who starts a page on someone else's website can override the policies of the sites owners. I can't believe that Facebook would be OK with General Mills trying to pull this crap on their site.

If this stands as legal just think of the 'new and interesting' conditions that some employers may try to saddle their employees with and some of the things you may now be asked to accept in even the most mundane consumer transactions.

I've already sent them an email on this. In case anyone is interested here is the contact form from their site:

General Mills Consumer Services

Forget about the NSA, the 'Powers That Be', all that jazz...this is the single biggest threat to our way of life that I've seen due to the tyrannical thinking which is behind it and due to the probable ramifications of this policy being accepted as legal if it is. I'd like to believe that General Mills would be laughed at by a court of law but the way things have been breaking for corporations lately I'm not as sure as I'd like to be.

reply to post by Goteborg


Thanks for the update


This kind of thing really gets my back up.

I heard something about this a few weeks ago. Pretty much anytime you have to click on agree to somebodys T&Cs in the fine print somewhere you give up the right to sue, agreeing to arbitration.

Could be tucked away in ATS T&Cs somewhere. I didnt exactly read them.

This is silly.

Can I file a civil suit, for sime reason, against a friend or acquaintance who I also may "like"? And who also may have benefited me in some way? Like maybe loaned me 2o bucks? Of course I can.

Corporations want all the rights and privileges of personhood but none of the responsibility.

And - no - not that I *would* sue a friend, just that I *could* if I wanted to and the court would decide the merits of the case.

Those entities with the money to sink into writing contracts will do absolutely anything to relieve themselves of liability.

Those "Terms and Conditions" many of us click on to visit a website are a contract even, and many do not even realize they are entering into any type of binding agreement.

Anything you say or do to anyone or anything amounts to an agreement of some sort somehow to someone or something that doesn't necessarily require a signature like most people think they do.

Yeah, it's legal, and you can't do much of anything about it unless you have butt-loads of money to waste fighting those who try to enforce those "unconscionable contracts".

But then the only reason they are unconscionable is because most people are able to read OK, but can't comprehend the language they are reading, because it isn't language in common use as so many believe.

You have the right to remain silent, and it is a good idea to exercise that right when using any form of expression.

Be careful, be modest, be quiet.

Surprised their facebook page isn't getting slammed with blowback. Unless they delete all negative reviews.

Hahaha I just noticed something. Their facebook page has a grand total of 95 likes.

As mentioned liking a product at some point should not prevent a change of heart in the future.

Do very many people buy products that they do not like initially?

Just when you think corporations have tapped evil out they find a new load to mine.

TKDRL
Surprised their facebook page isn't getting slammed with blowback. Unless they delete all negative reviews.

Hahaha I just noticed something. Their facebook page has a grand total of 95 likes.

edit on Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:56:13 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

There are companies now who will accept your money to keep negative stuff about you off the net. Remember when trust and word of mouth meant something about a product or service.

Who in there right mind would pick a product or service based on facebook 'likes' or some site's thumbs up count.

reply to post by roadgravel

Who in there right mind would pick a product or service based on facebook 'likes' or some site's thumbs up count.

True.
But...
Then you have Facebook pages for these companies offering coupons or the possibility of winning something IF you 'like' their page.

reply to post by flammadraco

This really should be "Social Media Suicide" for big companies as everyone should leave on mass.

You hit the nail on the head.

I was thinking that a possible alternative legal precedent may be set, that online agreements may lose their perceived legal standing which could be a positive outcome.

One can only hope and dream.

reply to post by flammadraco


What a sneaky way to get out of a f*** up. Good thing I don't use coupons, nor do I "like" anything since I don't use facebook. Disgusting.

Something else that is of concern to me is that the legal section of the General Mills site doesn't specify where a coupon has to come from. I get coupons for General Mills products quite a bit from Kroger, do they really think that they can saddle me with an arbitration agreement based upon my dealings with an entirely different company?

I did some extra reading and apparently the Supreme Court made a ruling in 2011 which changed the way these 'agreements' work. Funny how we get stories in the news that get some people worked up but don't really effect a lot of people but the stories that do, we find about 3 years later.

reply to post by flammadraco

...What is this world coming to where the rights of the corporations supersede the rights of a person.

Corporations are required by law to "maximize profits" - directors who fail in their duty to make money for shareholders (maximize profits) are open to being sued by shareholders.

How Corporate Law Inhibits Social Responsibility

...the many social ills created by corporations stem directly from corporate law. ...the law, in its current form, actually inhibits executives and corporations from being socially responsible.

...The provision in the law I am talking about is the one that says the purpose of the corporation is simply to make money for shareholders. Every jurisdiction where corporations operate has its own law of corporate governance. But remarkably, the corporate design contained in hundreds of corporate laws throughout the world is nearly identical. ...

...Although the wording of this provision differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, its legal effect does not. This provision is the motive behind all corporate actions everywhere in the world. Distilled to its essence, it says that the people who run corporations have a legal duty to shareholders, and that duty is to make money. Failing this duty can leave directors and officers open to being sued by shareholders.

butcherguy
reply to post by roadgravel

 

quote:
Who in there right mind would pick a product or service based on facebook 'likes' or some site's thumbs up count.


True.
But...
Then you have Facebook pages for these companies offering coupons or the possibility of winning something IF you 'like' their page.

It's amazing what kinda BS people will fall far, especially on the internet. These folks would be better working with the emails about millions of dollars available to them. Higher rate of return.

When you look at how the sheep flocked to FACEBOOK and make imaginary friends and "LIKE" any and everything is this that surprising?