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

originally posted by: stealthXninja
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.

while i agree that people are entirely too litigious these days, there are certain things that ARE a valid reason to sue...like someone hitting you with a car. or vandalizing your car, or shipping a container of food with a dead rodent in it..

i mean, finding a dead mouse in your cereal isn't something dumb that the purchaser did....

i'm not sure i understand WHY you'd not think this a valid reason to sue...

But wait, in contract law there are rules right? It has to be fair etc... I can't quote all the rules but for instance I could put in a contract that if you buy my product you will be my eternal slave... It doesn't mean anything though as it is unreasonable. I think thie is a damage limitation stratergy... Say you get something in your box of cheerios, a rat or whatever, and you complain, maybe threaten to sue. They will point out that you can't sue cos you liked their facebook and it is in the rules etc. This alone will put a percentage of people off suing.

Essencially it seems like they are just chancing their arm. I highly doubt it would stand up in court.

It's upto the courts to decide who gets sued for what,

a company cannot just proclaim immunity from the law because of some ego issues in their heads.

Here is general mills UK contact details, I am considering writing a letter of complaint just to let them all know what a bunch of plonkers they are.

Try and negate my rights bitch.

Our mailing address
General Mills U.K. Limited
1 George Street
Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 1QQ
UNITED KINGDOM

 44 1895 201 100

And how the hell does liking a company benefit anyone but the company?

On facebook I mean, the odd company may hold a competition picking someone who liked their page - but the wording in the source article makes it sound like giving a like on facebook is a benefit for the liker?

What codswallop, it's more promotional value for the company's,.

a reply to: Soapusmaximus

Its rather irrelevant. Their contract is only enforcable in the US where the courts have agreed that a contract can remove your statutory rights if you sign it.

In the UK and in the rest of Europe, courts and government have stated that a contract cannot revoke your statutory rights under any circumstances. Therefore General Mill's 'contract' is unenforceable within the EU and UK.

UPDATE: General mills has done a complete about-face

arstechnica.com...

a reply to: Daedalus

Thanks for the update Daedalus

a reply to: flammadraco

originally posted by: Daedalus
UPDATE: General mills has done a complete about-face

arstechnica.com...

From your article:

In a blog post entitled, “We’ve listened – and we’re changing our terms back,” General Mills Spokeswoman Kirstie Foster explained, “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.”

Foster continued, "We'll just add that we never imagined this reaction. We're sorry we even started down this path."

REALLY GM? You honestly thought that this was a good idea? Your last sentence basically just says, "We just assumed that our customers would bend over and take it like they do with other companies."

Also I read the other two twitter justice accounts (the Sallie Mae one and Macy's), I'm glad justice was served against SM, but the Macy's thing reads like they don't give a damn about this twitter reaction. Even their public statement on the matter reads as such, "These are our policies, deal with it blackie." I hope that Rob Brown gets justice against that department store.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

FB will never have a dislike, b/c would be taken as bullying. Just think a bunch of students disliking another and that student commits suicide. People can't take negatives anymore and this would just publicize them.

wu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Daedalus
UPDATE: General mills has done a complete about-face

arstechnica.com...

From your article:

In a blog post entitled, “We’ve listened – and we’re changing our terms back,” General Mills Spokeswoman Kirstie Foster explained, “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.”

Foster continued, "We'll just add that we never imagined this reaction. We're sorry we even started down this path."

REALLY GM? You honestly thought that this was a good idea? Your last sentence basically just says, "We just assumed that our customers would bend over and take it like they do with other companies."

Also I read the other two twitter justice accounts (the Sallie Mae one and Macy's), I'm glad justice was served against SM, but the Macy's thing reads like they don't give a damn about this twitter reaction. Even their public statement on the matter reads as such, "These are our policies, deal with it blackie." I hope that Rob Brown gets justice against that department store.

I was shocked at the Sallie Mae story, how heartless to treat bereaved parents like that.

This is the first I've heard of this but it comes as no surprise. The rich very much like to stay rich. Shame on General Mills & all the corporations who shill through social networking.

The ironic thing is that giving gifts for "liking" a Facebook page is against their terms of service and can get your account banned...although everyone seems to do it these days.