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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Apr 17, 2014.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    This story has been all over today. But, it still disturbs me when I think about it. Back when I was a wee lad, they always told us in school that you can't sign away your Constitutional rights. Well, sure, your rights are not enforceable in a civilian court when you are in the military, etc. But, a non-felon not in the military, etc., could not give up your rights by the trick of a pen. Although there were always lots of caveats, the idea was still appealing-- when push came to shove, you could get your day in court.

    So, how about this idea from General Mills:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    If this ever becomes an issue and goes to court I can't see those clauses standing up. You can claim that by doing something I give up rights, but that doesn't mean it is actually enforceable.
     
  3. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #3
    America is a corporate run state, they will stand up once the right people are paid.
     
  4. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #4
    This is just like an EULA. They can make you agree to all kinds of things in all kinds of subtle, indirect ways, but it's highly unlikely they'll actually be able to enforce it.
     
  5. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #5
    And we know exactly who those 5 people are.
     
  6. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #6
    An example of why you should always read the fine print before agreeing to anything. No one forces you to download the coupon, like or become a fan.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    or buy food?
     
  8. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #8
    So, you think it is OK for General Mills, and, presumably, every other company, to unilaterally decide that their customers must use binding arbitration? Can I do that? Presumably, anybody that I "interact with" has received a "benefit" (as defined by me!), and, therefore, can never sue me?

    While we are on the subject, are you OK with AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion
     
  9. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #9
    It's not that they are buying food, they are choosing to purchase food with a coupon provided by the company to reduce the costs. The company has apparently put some terms in those coupons that people disagree with. This leaves them two options, pay full price for the food not using the coupon, or agree to the terms.
     
  10. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    Unless they made an agreement with facebook to show a Eula when liking something it isn't even in their realm of ability to stipulate this.
     
  11. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    Ahem:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability

    No rational person would agree that using a $0.50 coupon should void your ability to sue a company for legitimate damages.
     
  12. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #12
  13. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #13
    The issue is that this "contract" is unenforceable, and it should be removed from the terms for using a coupon.

    Otherwise people have to go to court and gt them to agree that the contract is unenforceable, which costs $$. And the coupon issuer knows this, and hopes people using the coupon will be discouraged from suing due to the cost.
     
  14. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #14
    So you want to demand that the company remove those terms from their coupons? Is the company required to issue coupons? Are people required to use coupons?
     
  15. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    Are you so studious you read the terms and conditions on every little box of cookies you buy, or every coupon you clip from the newspaper?

    No one can write a contract that allows you to sign away your rights. This is especially true of assumed contracts, where the expectations of you reading the fine print aren't necessarily expected, and you sign nothing to gain the benefit. Hostess couldn't slap "the opening of this package constitutes a binding contract, which henceforth secures us (Hostess) the right of possession of your firstborn child", and expect it to be legally binding. All you were expecting when you bought that box of Ho-Hos were some cookies to eat. You had no compelling reason to read the fine print, or assume that opening them acted as an agreement to certain terms and conditions.

    So no, General Mills doesn't get a pass just because they're throwing some words around, and people failing to read the fine print on everyday activities, then realizing they've signed away certain guaranteed rights isn't them refusing to take responsibility for their actions.
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16
    So Discount Airlines stipulates you can't sue them if you buy an airline ticket at the non-refundable rates(which is usually the lowest price) under a promotion deal. Plane crashes due to pilot negligence and the airline failed to properly check on the crews background, had shoddy training programs, etc. You survive, but can't sue the airline due to that clause....

    You really don't have a problem with that clause?

    Or you going to be that guy from Airplane? "They knew the risks when they bought their ticket. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let them crash". ;)
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    Of course he doesn't! No one's forcing him to fly with that particular airline.
     
  18. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    I am sorry to say, and, I really mean it (warning: no irony for once), that I have lost confidence in the Supreme Court. I've never seen a court more openly favorable to wealth and power. It used to be something that we read about in history books.
     
  19. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #19
    I worked at a customer site once and was told I needed to sign some forms from the customer before I could go. A number of the terms were reasonable, some minorly questionable (You won't sue us if something happens), but they put in a "mother hubbard clause" which basically implied if I used this company's product, I couldn't sue them for that either, even if it was after I left their site. This company makes medication. I consulted my lawyer and struck that portion of the agreement before I signed. I'm not surprised by any of this.
     
  20. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #20
    READ WHAT YOU SIGN. If you choose not to read what you sign or agree to, then it is on you.
     
  21. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    Just because a Corporate behemoth says individuals lose their rights, does not make it reality. If push comes to shove, the courts will decide.
     
  22. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, USA
    #22
    That's not the point. These types of clauses are unreasonable and restrict rights unjustly. I tend to be more right than most here, and even I'm baffled you don't understand this.
     
  23. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #23
    Yeah. It's like a company awhile back suing a customer for damages because they posted a negative review because there was a hidden clause that they couldn't post a negative review by using their product.
     
  24. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #24
    No one is forcing them to agree to it. If you object, don't agree. Simple.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    So you read every user agreement for every website you visit? I call bull.
     

Share This Page