Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the sue-you-sue-anybody dept.

Social Networks 216

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?"

cancel ×

216 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The power of EULAs only goes so far (5, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 6 months ago | (#46783109)

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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 6 months ago | (#46783233)

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.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (5, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | about 6 months ago | (#46783543)

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.

Coincidentally... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783869)

brainless slugs don't read the EULA... then again who does?

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (4, Funny)

nblender (741424) | about 6 months ago | (#46783237)

so would that make you a cereal killer?

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 6 months ago | (#46783287)

Like Count Chocula?

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783469)

No, like Green Jello.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 6 months ago | (#46783611)

No, like Green Jello.

Didn't Jello sue them over the Jello trademark and they changed their name to "Green Jelly"

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783635)

I don't think they were ever sued, just threatened. They changed the name to "Green JellÃ", which is pronounced the same way as their previous name.

"Little pig, little pig let me in!"
"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin!"

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783697)

Myself, I was quite partial to "Electric Harley House of Love"

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (2, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 6 months ago | (#46783567)

Oh come on, He's a vampire! Making someone undead is the opposite of killing them, right?
Mr. Chocula, is it not true that on the night of April 15 you did not, not kill the plaintiff?
It is true that that is not true!
But it IS true that you sucked the life force out of them!
No! It was April 15 and they had been bled dry already!

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783913)

*serial killer

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (0)

BSAtHome (455370) | about 6 months ago | (#46783277)

Disclaimer
It is not my fault!
You, the reader or user of the provided information, have implicitly agreed to this disclaimer by entering this site or using its information and accept this disclaimer to govern your use of any and all information from or derived from this site.

- You are solely responsible for your own fate and agree to not to blame me or my affiliates for your unfortune in whatever form.
- You agree to not to take offence about any information provided by or derived from this site. Your only recourse is to leave me and my affiliates alone and not to visit, read, remember, see and use any information provided by or derived from this site.
- Upon request you accept to provide a copy of your soul for inspection (for those jurisdictions that adapt to that dogma of beings with souls). Any copies will be destroyed after inspection. You are solely responsible for your soul and copy/copies of your soul. You agree not to blame anyone else but yourself for what happens to your soul or copy/copies of your soul.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (2, Interesting)

mirix (1649853) | about 6 months ago | (#46783313)

I imagine I would want to kill myself if spent my time liking cereal on facebook, EULA or not.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783603)

It's no less trifling than the average Slashdot user obsessing over what operating system/software people choose to use.

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

mcrbids (148650) | about 6 months ago | (#46783601)

By reading this comment, you waive all rights to the ownership of your car...

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 6 months ago | (#46783709)

Good thing I lease. I never owned it to begin with. Nyah!

Re:The power of EULAs only goes so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783945)

Clicking "Like" already has entrenched connotations so I doubt they could override those with their own hidden EULA. IANAL

That settles it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783113)

We need an E.L.E. ASAP!

Consideration. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783125)

Consideration.

so? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46783127)

yeah, that will stand up in court. Really the people who put that in there should be fired. It will only end with a lawsuit and bad PR

Re:so? (2, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46783175)

yeah, that will stand up in court.

It has for AT&T, Verizon, EA, Dropbox, etc. Why would General Mills' be treated any different than the other Corporate Masters?

Re:so? (1, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46783259)

A) It hasn't.
B) Prior expectations.

Re:so? (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#46783327)

Why would General Mills' be treated any different than the other Corporate Masters?

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.

Re:so? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 6 months ago | (#46783531)

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:so? (2)

sverdlichenko (105710) | about 6 months ago | (#46783373)

How it stood up for all companies listed? Give us links to that stories!

Re:so? (1)

FyreFiend (81607) | about 6 months ago | (#46783383)

They're different. You're actually signing (or clicking through) something with them. This sounds like they're trying to say if you like them on Facebook (no EULA pops up when you like something) that you can never sue them. This will never stand up in court.

Re:so? (2)

EvilSS (557649) | about 6 months ago | (#46783441)

yeah, that will stand up in court.

It has for AT&T, Verizon, EA, Dropbox, etc. Why would General Mills' be treated any different than the other Corporate Masters?

The big difference here is that the agreement is not apparent or possibly even presented to the user at the time or before hand. You can like something on facebook that a friend liked, and you would never see that agreement. Ditto if you tweeted something to their twitter account (which I assume they would include in this). Even with today's corporate friendly courts I can't see how they would not get laughed out of the courtroom for trying to pull this card out.

Re:so? (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 6 months ago | (#46783529)

It stood up where there was an actual contract or financially backed transaction in place, not just off the back of a random click on a website.

Bull (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783129)

Shit

Possibly Worse Than That (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#46783137)

General Mills... 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

It might even be worse than that, according to an interview I heard on NPR earlier - the language of General Mills' new terms appears to include merely purchasing any of their products as a method of forcing you to waive your right to sue.

Of course, they also said one could "opt-out" by sending an email to the company... Anybody got a list of everybody's email addresses?

"Everybody" as in, every-fucking-body.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

axlash (960838) | about 6 months ago | (#46783243)

I know that it's said that ignorance of a contract is no excuse for breaching it.

But I sometimes feel that there should not be a requirement that the issuer of the contract should make it so obvious and public that there could not possibly any chance that the breacher could have acted out of ignorance.

Say what you like about software EULAs, at least in many cases, you have to have seen the dialog box with the text before going ahead to install the software - much better than having to search for some microscopic print.

I do recognise the difficulty of ensuring that parties in a contract know what they're getting into - that's why lawyers aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (3, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 6 months ago | (#46783343)

I know that it's said that ignorance of a contract is no excuse for breaching it.

Of course ignorance of the existence of a contract is an excuse for "breaching" it. What you're probably thinking of is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". But just because GF says "buying a box of our cereal creates a contractual relationship" doesn't make it so.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783927)

But just because GF says "buying a box of our cereal creates a contractual relationship" doesn't make it so.

Damn!
But that's how my girlfriend got me, by selling me a box of cereal!

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (2, Informative)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#46783491)

Contracts have to be negotiated and signed by two parties to be valid. You have to have an opportunity to modify the terms before exchanging money. Buying commodities doesn't meet that standard. Neither do post-purchase EULAs.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 6 months ago | (#46783993)

Correct, the legal term is 'Meeting of the Minds'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783285)

Little did they know that there is a EULA that comes along with my purchase. If they sell me a product, they are agreeing to a long list of provisions which they are free to look up on my Web site.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783371)

Have they delivered their 18-20 year old daughters yet?

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (5, Interesting)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 6 months ago | (#46783415)

This is actually a really good idea -- someone should create the OpenEULA -- a license agreement that individuals can sign on to, that indicates what conditions apply when a vendor accepts their payment. An organization that hosts the OpenEULA could even do things like get a credit card with the logo and references to the agreement on it, to make it completely legit (if the vendor accepts the card, they accept the liability should they breach the card's contract).

Anyone up for kicking this off?

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (5, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46783953)

Little did they know that there is a EULA that comes along with my purchase. If they sell me a product, they are agreeing to a long list of provisions which they are free to look up on my Web site.

I did that for HTTP. You'll find our binding agreement in your server logs. In the HTTP user agent header:

(By continuing to transmit information via this TCP connection beyond these HTPP headers you and the business you act in behalf of [hereafter, "you"] agree to grant the user of this connection [hereafter, "me" or "I"] an unlimited, world wide and royalty free copyright for the use and redistribution of said information for any purpose including but not limited to satire or public display, and agree that any portion of an agreement concerning waiving of my legal rights made via this connection is null and void including but not limited to agreements concerning arbitration; By accepting these terms you also acknowledge and agree that these terms supersede any further agreement you or I may enter into via this connection, and that the partial voiding of agreements will be accepted as a contractual exception regardless of statements to the contrary in further terms agreed to by you or I via this connection. If you do not agree to the terms of using this connection you must terminate the connection immediately. If you do not or can not agree to these terms you do not have permission to continue sending information to me via this connection, and continuing your transmission will be in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.)

You can add such a clause simply by using any of the various User-Agent switchers for your favorite browser.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

taustin (171655) | about 6 months ago | (#46783505)

That actually makes it better. It makes it so much more ridiculous that enforcement would be impossible even if there weren't extensive case law regarding such idiotic things. And there is. Contracts require informed consent, not one side just saying "neener neener you didn't see what I didn't show you."

No attempt will ever, ever be made to enforce this, because no lawyer in his right mind, or with any interest in continuing to make his boat payments, will touch it even if the honchos at GM are insane enough to try.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783663)

Wrong, GM will use it as a way to bash people into submission. When someone talks about suing and gets noisy enough, GM will send them a very powerful letter explaining to them in the most confusing way possible that they're already agreed to not sue them and that suing them would break this contract which would result in a counter suite from GM. That is enough for most people to back off. They aren't legal experts and have no way to defend themselves from a seemingly massive lawsuit.

If the person continues to push on, GM will go "oops, we didn't actually mean that" and things will continue 'normally.'

This is why we still need to fight against the slippery slope. While many things companies claim aren't legally enforceable, most people don't have the resources to claim otherwise so whatever the company says goes. As power always corrupts, companies will say more and more (which is what is happening with all the new you can't sue us clauses). We've let EULA get too strong because we're warn out from actively fighting them at every power grab.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46783907)

Wrong, GM will use it as a way to bash people into submission. When someone talks about suing and gets noisy enough, GM will send them a very powerful letter explaining to them in the most confusing way possible that they're already agreed to not sue them and that suing them would break this contract which would result in a counter suite from GM.

Go ahead. Try that shit on me. I'm begging you.

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783719)

Anybody got a list of everybody's email addresses?

"Everybody" as in, every-fucking-body.

Try the NSA?

Re:Possibly Worse Than That (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 6 months ago | (#46783739)

Can I sue them over the fact that I can no longer enjoy their products, thereby reducing my quality of life? The reason, of course, being one of liability; I can not and will not take on liability for their actions and any possible disastrous consequences of failures of their quality control processes or side effects caused by their current or future products, which is precisely the choice they're giving me: "Forgo being our customer, or take liability for our actions."

11-11-11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783149)

Never forget!

Re:11-11-11 (1, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 6 months ago | (#46783173)

The release date of Skyrim?

Re:11-11-11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783193)

Wait.. is that date in American or European format?

Re:11-11-11 (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46783211)

Neither. It's in ISO format but the year is truncated.

we've already had rulings that click-through fails (4, Informative)

swschrad (312009) | about 6 months ago | (#46783171)

and this ought to cement it. nobody reads that stuff. not even the lawyers. Microsoft was forced to allow refunds. some other cases ruled that click-through terms may be invalid for some claims. keep on keeping on, and if General Mills wants to waste lawyers generating snarky comments all over the public space, have at it. you will lose face.

Re:we've already had rulings that click-through fa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783239)

Click-through agreements fail for certain specific things. Just like at a retail store how their posted policies can only cover so much ground. The question is about the scope of the terms, not the existence of terms. Certain things require a more rigorous and explicit form of consent. But most of the boilerplate nonsense is just fine as a click-through/shrinkwrap agreement.

Re:we've already had rulings that click-through fa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783801)

Microsoft states in their EULA that you can get a refund (but you already knew that since you read it, right?). Using that as an example gives power to the EULAs.

However, I've never understood the "I don't agree" button. The license says that if I don't agree then I can't use the software and have to press that button. However since I'm not agreeing with that text, I'm also not agreeing with their request to not click the ok button. The software still installs itself...

Manage Your Likes (1)

Stealth Dave (189726) | about 6 months ago | (#46783185)

Since Facebook seems to think that "usability" is a four-letter word, I found that http://www.manageyourlikes.com [manageyourlikes.com] is an excellent way to trim your likes.

Re:Manage Your Likes (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#46783273)

I fond not using facebook has worked best.

Re:Manage Your Likes (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46783393)

Don't discourage them. Facebook is great; it improves signal to noise ratio everywhere. Their signal (look at me, look at me) is our noise. Not unlike AOL of old days.

Capitalism at its finest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783205)

Dear USA
This is just yet another example of capitalism at its finest yet you fucktarded USians still keep adhering to this flawed economic system..The solution to this is simple, communism. That's right boys and girls, communism. Capitalism forces sheep like you fucktarded USians to sign your freedoms away in order to get coupons in order to get food at regular price instead of an overly inflated price. Communism eliminates the need for shit like this. Oh, I get it your Jebus was capitalistic and xtianity survives on Capitalism which is why you fucktarded USians love Capitalism while hating Communism, you refuse to outgrow and outlaw religion to get out of the dark ages. Oh well your tune will change once it is too late and numerous USian sheeple get sick from eating bacteria-laden food from your precious businesses and you can no longer sue.

Sincerely,
Signed : The rest of the world

Re:Capitalism at its finest (0, Offtopic)

hebertrich (472331) | about 6 months ago | (#46783503)

The model is unsustainable and it's well known that by mid century important resources will be depleted and that the Earth will not be able to feed the ever growing population. Just be patient , they are on a crash course to disaster , famine ,poverty and death. They will pay a high price for their lifestyle : the end of the capitalist system and society.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783209)

I can "Like" General Mills Chex without liking General Mills. They can't enforce this any more than I can force them to pay me because I'm their customer. There's no offer, there's no consideration, and there's no acceptance - there isn't even an offer *of* anything. Whichever moron expected this to work clearly needs to take contract law 101.

This landgrab by companies to admonish themselves of any and all responsibility and liability for anything whatsoever runs contrary to the basic social contract. Yes, you ARE bound by that because your company is an American one. It sits on American soil. It follows the laws of the land. Period.

Seriously. The level of stupid is reaching...stupid levels.

Re:Bullshit (3, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | about 6 months ago | (#46783537)

The Like button has created a quandary for millions. It may be possible for you to "unlike" something, but that has not nearly the force of a "dislike" button. In order to get your voice heard at all, one has to "Like" the product to become associated with it. Then you can rant and rave about how bad it is. This makes about as much sense as clicking "Start" to shutdown your computer.
The "Like" button also doesn't provide the expression one needs when confronted with a post such as 'My mom just died." What do you do? Like it? Not Like it? Dislike might be a better choice in this instance as well.
Of course, Facebook wouldn't allow a Dislike button. That would be too negative.
So, just don't use Facebook, or acknowledge the existence thereof.

Sex with your girlfriend. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46783895)

10,372 people liked this.

Nice Try (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 6 months ago | (#46783217)

Companies like these are trying to take a page out of the software industry playbook. Nice Try but I doubt if I buy a Chevy in the future it will eliminate their liability should the ignition fail while driving it or I happen to use a $10 off oil change coupon at one of their dealerships. Likewise if General Mills says you can't sue them because you like them on Facebook or use a coupon won't protect them should you get poisoned from a box of Cheerios.

well, yeah, but this one's a bad example (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 6 months ago | (#46783683)

see, the bankruptcy discharge for Bad Old GM stated that it was the place to sue for defects in cars made under their watch. New GM is now testing that by petitioning the bankruptcy court to honor that agreement, since a bunch of lawyers are now circling them due to the blood in the water over the funky ignition switches and keylocks.

there is, of course, no Bad Old GM left.

My Notice to General Mills (4, Interesting)

PaddyM (45763) | about 6 months ago | (#46783231)

IANAL, but can I send them this? Note that I would include my name and birth year per their legal requirements if I decide to send it.

Any attempt to contact me via phone, email, or newspaper, constitutes acceptance of these legal terms. Any coupons for products produced by your company that are sent to me without my explicit request or that show up in an advertisement on the internet confirm your agreement to these terms.

I do not agree to binding arbitration. I do not agree to any terms which General Mills has proscribed. I hereby agree to ignore any response, and only to send bills in the amount of $100,000.00 to General Mills if I receive a response. If I currently have any existing customer relationship with General Mills I hereby declare that relationship null and void. Any coupons from General Mills which arrive in my mailbox or in my email will result in a $10,000.00 per coupon recycling charge.

ANY attempt to reply to my email will cost General Mills $100,000.00. There are no exceptions. If you disagree, if you think these terms are unfair, the only acceptable way to avoid payment of these terms that I have proscribed is to change your legal terms: http://generalmills.com/Legal_... [generalmills.com] to something compatible with US Constitutional law.

Again, I am not bound by your legal terms. If your legal team finds some way that I am inadvertently bound by your legal terms (e.g. member of a particular website, that I was not aware was owned by General Mills), then General Mills owes me $100,000.00 and is required to remove me from that website at its own expense. If after that removal, you find that I'm still somehow related to General Mills in anyway, that will be another $100,000.00. So get it right the first time! Because I explicitly requested not to be bound by your legal terms and this notice serves as a record of that statement per your own legal terms.

Re:My Notice to General Mills (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#46783323)

Private companies are NOT bound, in any possible way, by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights...

Re:My Notice to General Mills (4, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 6 months ago | (#46783365)

Private companies are NOT bound, in any possible way, by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights...

So....they are allowed to quarter troops in my home?

Re:My Notice to General Mills (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783671)

So....they are allowed to quarter troops in my home?

Dude ... stop giving them ideas.

Re:My Notice to General Mills (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783715)

umm what? quick example: prohibition most certainly applied to private companies

Re:My Notice to General Mills (2)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about 6 months ago | (#46783429)

You probably mean prescribed, not proscribed, in several places.

Re:My Notice to General Mills (1, Insightful)

PaddyM (45763) | about 6 months ago | (#46783581)

You mean because their medicine makes my head hurt :)

Seriously, thank you, I did not realize the proscribe is the opposite of prescribe in terms of the law.

Now that I've heard that... (1, Insightful)

OakDragon (885217) | about 6 months ago | (#46783257)

...it just makes me want to sue them on principle.

This isn't news... (5, Insightful)

Ziggitz (2637281) | about 6 months ago | (#46783271)

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:This isn't news... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 6 months ago | (#46783621)

This is probably more than just shit-slinging. The more reasons they have to create more paperwork and more time in court for an individual plaintiff, the more money it costs on both sides in legal fees. How much would it cost in legal fees to fight the validity of just this point of the EULA? They don't care if they lose the individual battle, they have much deeper pockets for legal fees than an individual, or even a class in a class-action lawsuit, so delaying and/or running the plaintiff out of money means winning the war.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783767)

Yes it is.
In fact its an alarm.
A very loud one that should be acted on now.
The consumers should proactively defend themselves.
 

I read ToS's then agree even if (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 6 months ago | (#46783309)

My rights to sue are forbidden.

I don't have a cite but it's been challenged in court and found to be an unobtainable right (USA).

CORRUPTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783351)

Obviously the Supreme Court has fallen into dogmatic hell and we can not count on sane or fair decisions from our courts. But even considering that state of affairs such a defensive device by corporations probably would not hold up in court and they know that well enough. But what it will do is add more difficulty and expense to challenging them in court. Far too few people can afford to enter into a dispute when they are harmed as it is. This disclaimer will simply shrink the number of potential suits by raising the difficulty of recovery just one more, little bit.

Re:CORRUPTION (1)

fnj (64210) | about 6 months ago | (#46783959)

what it will do is add more difficulty and expense to challenging them in court

Nonsense. It doesn't add a single synaptic transaction of difficulty or a single cent of expense to challenging them.

print a sign saying not responsible for theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783375)

print a sign saying by reading this I'm not responsible for theft and you will not do anything to me. Hang it over your self and go to town at stores, banks and more.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 6 months ago | (#46783439)

Since 99% of the people have never read a ToS, it's safe to assume it won't be a problem, ignorance of the law is a defense.

Re:I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Interne (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | about 6 months ago | (#46783539)

No, ignorance of the contract is a defense - without a meeting of the minds there is no contract. Ignorance of the law will still absolutely get you penalized, incarcerated, etc. if you break it. But in one case you're talking about a private party or company and yourself, in the other you're talking about your relationship to the state.

send them my own contract? (0)

hawguy (1600213) | about 6 months ago | (#46783495)

If clicking 'like' where I have no way to read to and agree to a contract stands up in court, can I also email them a contract of my own telling them that by accepting my 'like' then they are bound to the terms of my contract?

Re:send them my own contract? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#46783933)

Nah. By downloading their web page to my computer they are accepting my EULA agreement.

Send a message (3, Insightful)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 6 months ago | (#46783565)

Don't buy their products. Boycott.

Corporations only listen to their bottom line, and we can make a lot of noise by simply not buying and encouraging everyone we know to do the same.

Sadly, I was not a fan of General Mills' products to begin with. Fortunately, it'll make a boycott for me rather painless.

But sending a message that this sort of behavior is unacceptable would be a good thing.

Re:Send a message (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 6 months ago | (#46783615)

Not sure if continuing to not buy something you wouldn't buy anyway qualifies as boycott, but it's the thought that counts :)

Re:Send a message (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 6 months ago | (#46783659)

Not sure if continuing to not buy something you wouldn't buy anyway qualifies as boycott, but it's the thought that counts :)

Maybe. If I'm in the grocery store and see a General Mills' product, I'm going to keep walking, even if the product looks like something I'd like, from now on.

Re:Send a message (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46783875)

It's the 'encouraging everyone we know' part that makes the whole thing work. I may not have been a customer of Admiral Grain-grinders, but I'll bet I have friends that are.

Diffidently I point out... (1)

kylemonger (686302) | about 6 months ago | (#46783569)

... that we have courts to redress grievances so that people can go there instead of, you know, forming a mob and lynching somebody. Does this mean that General Mills is now OK with the ropes and torches and all that whenever someone gets sick or thinks they got sick from a General Mills product? Fantastic.

Simple Fix - Local Tax on Products w/Arbit clauses (2)

breaddoughrising (310165) | about 6 months ago | (#46783605)

Municipalities should simply place a large tax on items sold with an arbitration clause. Then General Mills can watch what happens to there market share as people learn Tastee O's taste pretty damn similar to Cheerio's. And on another front, I guess minors will no longer be able to buy food because they are not old enough to enter binding contracts of any form?

Flood the system (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 6 months ago | (#46783609)

It occurred to me, maybe if we, as in as many of us as possible, crafted asinine EULA's for communicating with each other, then sueing each other over breaches.. if we all started doing this, flooding the court system with all these retarded EULA's which we created just to be jerks to the system.. how do you think the legal system in the USA would respond?

Could be interesting!

Re:Flood the system (1)

PaddyM (45763) | about 6 months ago | (#46783639)

Have you no experience dealing with a Vogon?

I think it is the opposite of interesting.

Re:Flood the system (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46783861)

Ever heard of anybody being sued for filing frivolous lawsuits? If I'm not mistaken, the court itself can act as complainant in such an action.

IANAL, so yes, I could very well be mistaken.

Small claims court (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783643)

I think small claims court is an under utilized weapon that we have. Everyone wants to sue big. We need a lot of people to start nickle and dime these companies in small claims court. In my state it costs $35 and claims could be up to $3000. The company can send only one person and it cannot be a lawyer. We can file in our local towns and they would have to travel there. Odds are, they will settle.

Re:Small claims court (2)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 6 months ago | (#46783725)

Agree 100%. Small claims courts are a powerful tool. we should use them more.

Less food-like substances to buy (1)

ikhider (2837593) | about 6 months ago | (#46783677)

Please, give me even more reason to not buy food-like substances. I also appreciate another reason to not use Facebook. It's time we support sustainable economies and the slow-food movement and leave prepared crap behind. These companese use legalese because their products are not real food anyway. Eat a healthy breakfast, chomp on an apple or banana if you don't have time. Just don't support these cancers to society. I am giving GNU Social a try, bring power back to the users, to the people.

Irony to Class Action Them Over Their Agreement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783691)

Title says it all.

Binding Arbitration subverts the Constitution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783741)

I was predisposed to hate this movie.. They changed my mind very quickly.
If you think you know the story, and are even close to the average american in listening habits .. you are almost certainly wrong about what happened and are being endangered by a great number of things you are signing away..

The one thing the founding fathers gave us to defend ourselves in these cases is the right to sue.... and one case at a time that is being taken away.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

Europe has laws against this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783841)

The european union has made laws that are against this.

Like for example agreement to EULA does not waive the right for class action lawsuits or lawsuits.

Take for example the EA games EULA from the US and compare it to the european one there will be several big differences in there.

Same goes for Steam has a entire different set of EULA compared to the US.

Wasn't this already resolved? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 6 months ago | (#46783851)

Wasn't there a whole raft of decisions about the validity of 'click-wrap' licenses and EULA's? My memory's pretty rotten, but it seems to me that there were quite a few companies that were obliged to rethink their EULA's not that long ago for many of the same reasons that are present here.

For a list of Forced Arbitration companies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783873)

http://www.citizen.org/forced-arbitration-rogues-gallery

Lying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783893)

When will the lying stop? That is, when will licenses, which are lies, cease to exist?

lets just start killing everyone in charge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46783957)

what's the point of following the law when the legal system is a sham? how is "binding arbitration" legal? how can you force employees into arbitration? fuck it. we know it's an oligarchy so lets just kill the fascists who took over and implement a constitutional democracy. time to reboot a broken system

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?