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

Goteborg
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.

General Mills can't SWAT team my house...the federal government, and it's various agencies can..

i daresay they're a bit more of a threat than this is..

kosmicjack
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.

the key difference is that you and your friend did not sign a "friendship contract"..there is no legally binding agreement between the two of you, so you can sue for whatever you want...

corporations, on the other hand, have all kinds of sneaky ways to get you to "sign" legally binding documents, with all kinds of ridiculous language, that would be completely illegal, had you not "signed" it, thus agreeing to the terms.....making a click of a mouse legally the same as a real, ink-on-paper signature, was one of the worst things i've seen in recent years...

any legally binding document should hafta be signed by hand, and with a witness..

roadgravel
There are companies now who will accept your money to keep negative stuff about you off the net.

there are also companies one can use to artificially increase their like count....i know of a certain company, that used such a service for a certain unpopular game, as a means to generate fake interest and buzz, to raise it's profile....

Remember when trust and word of mouth meant something about a product or service.

i actually do...barely...my parents used to tell me stories too...

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

that's how people do now....most americans have a facebook...and most of that percentage of the people are morons....they essentially live on facebook...it's a fake social life...fake social consensus....if it's got a ton of facebook likes, that means it's popular, and if it's popular, it must be good, therefore, it's what I'M gonna use...

...so dumb...

reply to post by Daedalus


Be serious for a second. What do you think the odds are that the feds or anyone else is going to "SWAT Team your house"? And if they do, are you saying that you would be completely innocent? I don't think you're anywhere near as important as you think you are.

General Mills (and many others) on the other hand since 2011 apparently have the ability to avoid a day in court based on a facebook like. Even if they accidently put peanuts in the Cheerios and kill or seriously injure someone you've got no jury award. You can go ahead and live in your make believe world where a federal SWAT raid on your house is imminent but I prefer to live in the real world where liability and accountability are real concerns.

tinner07
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 NOT the same thing as agreeing to a software's EULA before you use it. First the EULA displays VERY clearly and most if not all the time requires you to select a check box before you can proceed away from that screen. It is on you if you do not read that contract. The software company did everything it could possibly do to make you aware of the contract and that you had to agree to it before you can use their product.

General Mills is basically saying that this contract exists on their website, which let's be honest, how many people visit the website of cereal company? There is NO way to enforce acceptance of this contract before buying the product. In order for a contract to be legally binding, both parties must be aware of said contract and agree to it willingly and legally. Using a gift (because that is all a coupon is) that the company provides is not a legal acceptance of a contract, nor is saying you happen to like their company on the internet.

This could NEVER stand up in court as a valid legal document and methinks that GM will get away with this for a short bit against people who don't have the recourse to support a long legal battle, but eventually someone will show up with the resources and time to do so and this legal wriggling will come undone rather quickly and result in a HUGE publicity nightmare for General Mills.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

eventually someone will show up with the resources and time to do so and this legal wriggling will come undone rather quickly and result in a HUGE publicity nightmare for General Mills.

I really hope so

Goteborg
reply to post by Daedalus

 

Be serious for a second. What do you think the odds are that the feds or anyone else is going to "SWAT Team your house"? And if they do, are you saying that you would be completely innocent? I don't think you're anywhere near as important as you think you are.

General Mills (and many others) on the other hand since 2011 apparently have the ability to avoid a day in court based on a facebook like. Even if they accidently put peanuts in the Cheerios and kill or seriously injure someone you've got no jury award. You can go ahead and live in your make believe world where a federal SWAT raid on your house is imminent but I prefer to live in the real world where liability and accountability are real concerns.

and how about you come back to reality for a minute, and re-read my post...

i never said they were going to raid my house, or that it was imminent...all i said is that they CAN do it....and general mills cannot...this is a statement of fact. in terms of who's the bigger "threat to our way of life"...i think that's the hyperbolic term you used...i'd say an entity who can raid your home, shoot your dog, beat the crap out of you, and then get off scott free, with a "whoops", is a far greater threat than some scumbag company trying to weasel it's way out of liability...it'll be challenged, and defeated....

plus, there's the whole laundry list of other things that the federal government, and it's many, MANY agencies can do, that general mills cannot....

cut the crap, would you?

reply to post by flammadraco



This is exactly what is wrong with America, corporations using their finances to hire lawyers, to strip the citizens of their rights through unethical contractual schemes.

It used to be the case that a contract is mutual agreement that was based upon the power to negotiate.

Well America, you have VERY little POWER of negotiation in these regards, and in regards to nearly EVERY transaction that is service based.

Think about it people.

Are you free to negotiate your contract with Google for your gmail?

Are you free to negotiate the finer terms of your credit card?

this list is actually very long, the loss of the power that once belonged to the citizenry now rests in the hands of "people" that can afford to consult a lawyer at whim. However, most of us do not have that advantage and I think this is the true case of America's moral and literal demise.

We cannot tax the rich, that is wrong

We cannot regulate the businesses of the rich, that is wrong

But the rich can strap all of us with life long bills that are simply a new form of tax, EVERY month.

And we are not allowed to negotiate the important terms of contract law because of the economic barrier to do so and the conditioning that we have received.

So basically, all the civil laws and private contracts are directed to screw us in every way imaginable.

In this, the economic and legal system needs to be brought back into balance.

originally posted by: flammadraco
​Consumers may be barred from suing General Mills for ‘liking’ company on Facebook.

Facebook needs to add a "dislike" alternative.

So, if we click "dislike" it should preserve our rights to sue, or would clicking "dislike" also take away the right to sue?

I hope the people saying this won't hold up in court are right, but I also heard someone say you can't sue McDonalds for millions of dollars for serving you a hot cup of coffee and win, and they didn't turn out to be right.

SO, if I "liked" them on face book, then found the "hypothetical mouse" and phoned/emailed them,

How long would I be in arbitration to get either my money back or a free box of cereal?

Or because I "liked" them, would I then have given up the ability to have some sort of recompense?

i think there need to be some new laws put out about things like this. first off many of these terms and conditions are so full of legal hyperbole that they can be hard for many people to understand exactly what it is really saying, not to mention some are incredibly long and so things can easily be hidden within and easy to miss. so the first thing they need to implement is that before all the legalese BS, they should be forced to put a bullet point version on top of the other BS so people can read it and actually understand it. written in plain direct terms of what it is meaning to you. with the most important things, like in this case the removal of your RIGHT TO SUE, being listed first in block capitals, so it is more than obvious for everyone. they should also hyperlink from the bullet points to the actual affecting text, to make it easy for people to see it, then easy for people to read deeper.

the second thing that needs to happen, since in this case it seems to encompass so many things, things you are not forced, or even given a link to read the terms and conditions for. is to have a required pop up of these terms and conditions especially the bullet point version, ANY TIME something you may do may enact it. for instance if liking or sharing something on Facebook is included, as you hit like or share it pops up with the terms and conditions put in front of you and that by continuing you agree to it. same thing with signing up for their emails, gaining coupons, giveaways etc. as soon as you go to click on them the terms and conditions, and bullet points, pop up for you to see what you are agreeing to by it. and like with many video games have to actually at least scroll through it to click accept. even better would be to have to click for each individual section of it, with headers that describe in plain language what all the legal BS below actually means in real understandable language, written in such a way that even a beginning English reader can understand it, and it's ramifications to them. and that companies are held accountable more for the easy to understand version than the one that you really need a legal education to be able to understand it fully.

originally posted by: 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.

That's the real issue. It's no wonder they try everything in the book to avoid lawsuits. America is so sue happy, it makes me sick.

So you found a mouse in your box of cheerios... Who in their right mind would think, "oh, they owe me a ton of money now"!?

Seriously, return the box to the store, the same way you would return spoiled milk or rotten produce. It's not a big deal. You're going to the store again anyway.

I don't understand why everyone thinks they deserve money for every small inconvenience. That is the reason this is happening.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know why people always bring that case up. She won for good cause. You don't buy a cup of coffee and expect it to be hot enough to melt your skin off. A normal cup of coffee you brew will not do that. You get the equivalent to a sun burn, you don't need skin grafts.

originally posted by: stealthXninja
That's the real issue. It's no wonder they try everything in the book to avoid lawsuits. America is so sue happy, it makes me sick.

So you found a mouse in your box of cheerios... Who in their right mind would think, "oh, they owe me a ton of money now"!?

Seriously, return the box to the store, the same way you would return spoiled milk or rotten produce. It's not a big deal. You're going to the store again anyway.

I don't understand why everyone thinks they deserve money for every small inconvenience. That is the reason this is happening.

um, mate.....a mouse in your cereal isn't a small inconvenience....it's a bloody biohazard......definitely lawsuit material

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: stealthXninja
That's the real issue. It's no wonder they try everything in the book to avoid lawsuits. America is so sue happy, it makes me sick.

So you found a mouse in your box of cheerios... Who in their right mind would think, "oh, they owe me a ton of money now"!?

Seriously, return the box to the store, the same way you would return spoiled milk or rotten produce. It's not a big deal. You're going to the store again anyway.

I don't understand why everyone thinks they deserve money for every small inconvenience. That is the reason this is happening.

um, mate.....a mouse in your cereal isn't a small inconvenience....it's a bloody biohazard......definitely lawsuit material

I respectfully disagree, wholeheartedly.

Just because you can sue, does not mean you should. People are always looking for an easy buck. It's even worse when a person does something stupid on their own accord, and then sues someone else for making the opportunity available, to do something stupid.

a reply to: stealthXninja

So if you find a mouse in your Cheerios you won't sue?

a reply to: flammadraco

Yeah I wouldn't put much stock in an agreement hidden in the fine print by corporations. If its in conflict with law / case law the corporation wont have much of an argument.

The only things stunts like this do, especially when picked up by the media, is force consumers to just stop buying their items. The other thing its does is forces people to ask the question - What is so wrong about your product that it would require a caveat that people who buy it cant sue.

What exactly is the company trying to hide?

Wait.. it says

Download Coupons?

Er.. I thought the coupon had to be issued/approved by/with the company to be valid in the first place so they are saying if you accept our own coupons and use them at your local grocer - you cannot sue us if our Product is bad?

Thats Nuts.. One has Nothing to do with the other.

I fail to see how this can be legal. This has to be stopped before the corrupt companies and judges twist the system to such an extent as it's not possible to fix.

You know how web browsers can alert you to a malicious site to stop you from going there.. we need a American Freedom Browser that block sites like General Mills.

It's good to see this is being reported in other places because it Needs to get the attention of the masses.

Fox has a good video with Shepard Smith on it here: video.foxnews.com...=show-clips

I'm gonna check all the other major network news stations.

originally posted by: flammadraco

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.

Their policies and written up crapola is like a shot gun marriage, and does NOT define the law. It takes a court case and a judge to dominate their policies, top dog their little ego trip, and people will succeed in taking any company with these bubble gum legalese criminal contracts to court successfully and they'll be slapped back, as they deserve to be. Sometimes it takes a large amount of people to slap back the judge so they stand under like they are obliged to do by their oaths and serve and protect as well.