General Mills Retracts "No Right to Sue" EULA Clause 88
Just a few days after General Mills changed its policies to declare that people who so much as "liked" their page on Facebook thereby waived their right to sue the company in favor of arbitration, the company has reversed itself:
"The announcement resulted in huge backlash on social media, as well as from consumer groups. Legal experts expressed doubts it could ever be enforced. Hamline Law Professor David Schultz appeared on WCCO Sunday Morning.
“When I first saw this earlier this week I said this is questionable at best from a legal point of view,” he said. “From a marketing point of view, it’s a dumb idea, too, but legally it didn’t rest on very sound grounds so it’s not a surprise that they are reversing it. The lawyers at General Mills should have known better.”
Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of thing that happens when lawyers aren't kept on a short enough leash. They can't stop regurgitating into the legal documents they produce and you end up with this kind of complete and total stupidity. If the company really wants to save face they should fire the entire lot of them. Unless the executives are that afraid of the litigious cretins.
Vigilance (Score:5, Insightful)
Consumers need to be vigilant about this kind of crap. Sure general mills pulled back this time, but all that means is that next time they'll be more subtle, going for something that's less of a reach, and this kind of shit will slowly start encroaching on us. (See also SOPA type nonsense.)
Not over yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Float a trial balloon. Heat up the water in the pot a little bit more. Turn the screws. If the population squeaks, just back off a bit and try again later. Eventually they will get what they want. What are *you* going to do about it?
Signs (Score:4, Insightful)
This reminds me of those signs you sometimes see in car parks "the owners will not be held responsible for any damage to your vehicle." I am reliably informed that this is not true in all cases. If, for example, the owners fail to maintain equipment or the building adequately and you can attribute cause of damage to their dereliction of duty they can be held responsible. Putting up signs does not usurp consumer rights.
Re:Joke about lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
But corporations are people my friend.
(I just threw up in my mouth a little...)
Re:Lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know this was initiated by the lawyers?
Do you really think their lawyers can change the TOS without first getting approval from the management?
Re:Joke about lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
can't imagine a real lawyer being so stupid, then again I hear in usa anyone can pass for one.
Just because you can't imagine a reason other than stupidity doesn't mean there is one. I can thing of 3 possibilities (in order or probability) and I'm sure there's more:
1. They knew it would never hold up in court, which they are fine with. If they ever get sued, they can still use and even if it gets shot down, it still will cost the plaintiff a ton of money to fight it. General Mills most likely has much, much deeper pockets than any prospective plaintiff. It can then be used to either run the plaintiff out of money, or it'll help them in negotiation because the plaintiff's attorneys may consider it in how much it'll cost their client.
2. The lawyers bill hourly. The longer the EULA and the more time they spend on it, the more they get paid. They know it won't hold up but they don't care because General Mills gives them more money. If it does become a point to fight in court, even if they know they will lose that particular point, they're also billing hourly for that.
3. They really are stupid.
Re:"Like" General Mills? (Score:5, Insightful)
Often, you have to 'like' their pages on Facebook in order to participate in contests and the like. People love the possibility of getting free stuff, so they happily click 'like' to enter the contest, and then forget about it moments later.
Somebody obviously saw this as a sneaky way of possibly getting their customers to actively sign away their right to sue.
Re:the power of the internet .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who in their right mind would think that they could sneak in a clause that takes away already recognised rights, without VERY public and international comment.
10 or 15 years ago, that wouldn't have been something to take into account. A couple of people would have groused about it, and their friends might have paid attention, but the macro effect on the company would have been trivial.
Consider that Microsoft, for example, has gotten away with language like that in a piece of software that 90%+ of desktop computers are sold with, and that it's actually difficult to buy a computer without. Meaningful protests??? Roughly zero.