Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Shrinkwrap 'Contract' Found At Costco On... Collagen Peptides (mastodon.social) 74

Slashdot covered shrinkwrap licenses on software back in 2000 and 2002. But now ewhac (Slashdot reader #5,844) writes: The user Wraithe on the Mastodon network is reporting that a bottle of Vital Proteins(TM) collagen peptides purchased at Costco came with a shrinkwrap contract. Collagen peptides are often used as an anti-aging nutritional supplement. The top of the Vital Proteins bottle has a pull-to-open seal. Printed on the seal is the following: "Read This: By opening and using this product, you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions, fully set forth at vitalproteins.com/tc, which includes a mandatory arbitration agreement. If you do not agree to be bound, please return this product immediately."

So-called "shrinkwrap contracts" have been the subject of controversy and derision for decades since their first widespread appearance in the 1970's, attempting to alter the terms of sale after the fact, impose unethical and onerous restrictions on the purchaser, and absolving the vendor of all liability. Most such contracts appear on items involving copyrighted works (computer software, or any item containing computer software). The alleged "validity" of such contracts supposedly proceeds from the (alleged) need that the item requires a copyright license from the vendor to use (because the right to use/read/listen/view/execute is somehow not concomitant with purchase), and that the shrinkwrap contract furnishes such license.

The application of such a contract to a good where copyright has no scope, however, is something new. The alleged contract itself governs consumers' use of, "the VitalProteins.com website and any other applications, content, products, and services (collectively, the "Service")...," contains the usual we're-not-responsible-for-anything indemnification paragraph, and unilaterally removes your right to seek redress in court of law and imposes binding arbitration involving any disputes that may arise between the consumer and the company. Indeed, the arbitration clause is the first numbered section in the alleged contract.

The same contract has been spotted by numerous others — including someone who posted about it on Reddit two years ago. ("When I opened it, encountered a vacuum seal with the following 'READ THIS: by opening and using this product, you agree to...'") But the same verbiage still appears in online listings today for the product from Albertsons, Walgreens, and CVS.

Shrinkwrap contracts. They're not just for software any more...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shrinkwrap 'Contract' Found At Costco On... Collagen Peptides

Comments Filter:
  • So (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @12:17AM (#64754948)

    Everybody should just go in and buy a bottle and return it the next day and ask for a refund

    • Everybody should just go in and buy a bottle and return it the next day and ask for a refund

      Presumably if you didn't open it, it will end up right back on the shelf. You'd just be wasting your own time doing this.

      • by madbrain ( 11432 )

        Everybody should just go in and buy a bottle and return it the next day and ask for a refund

        Presumably if you didn't open it, it will end up right back on the shelf. You'd just be wasting your own time doing this.

        Costco allows opened returns. I have returned boxes of chocolates that tasted disgusting.
        Even a bottle of wine that was corked (others bottles of the same vintage were fine).
        Many stores will accept similar returns . I once returned ice cream at Safeway that had melted in the store and/or transport and been refrozen. It was easily visible by the texture once opened, no tasting required.

        That said, I don't think the return strategy is likely to be effective.
        I also doubt the shrinkwrap contract is enforceable,

        • by jhoegl ( 638955 )

          Enforceability of EULAs has been a controversial issue and varies by jurisdiction. In the United States, it is possible to enforce a EULA that is shown to the customer after purchase

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement [wikipedia.org]

          As precedent set by Software companies. Enjoy dystopian capitalism

          • by madbrain ( 11432 )

            I glanced through that.

            The page really only addresses software EULAs and they delivery. It's unclear how much of it is applicable to a "dietary supplement EULA", whatever that might be.

            The page also mentions that it can in some cases be legal to enforce an EULA that's shown after purchase. But in the case of a dietary supplement, when will it ever be shown ? I take several dietary supplements. I can't remember the last time I loaded up a URL for that supplement. And I certainly was never asked or required t

            • The seal on the bottle points to a page that redirects to that terms and conditions contract on the website. The company decided to try re-use the website T&Cs without updating the language.

              That doesn't make the headline click-baity or untrue. It just proves at least one person at the company is a dumbass and a lot of people didn't call that person out on it (most likely because that one person is upper management).

          • by msauve ( 701917 )
            >it is possible to enforce a EULA that is shown to the customer after purchase

            That's why I either mark up a paper one with my own terms, or put a sticky note with my own terms over one shown on a screen. Those terms include "...by allowing me to proceed, you agree to my terms." What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
      • They bill the cost of returns to the supplier/manufacturer. Lots of returns would mean those bills come to more than what they receive from selling the product.

    • by will4 ( 7250692 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @01:26AM (#64755070)

      Conjecture: There will be repeated attempts to put shrinkwrap licenses or arbitration clauses on low-cost consumer products until there is a federal court legal precedent established.

      Once the precedent is established, every company will put a 'no matter what this product does to you, how ill you become, or if you die; the company's liability is limited to the original purchase price and all claims against the company must go individually 1 by 1 through a complicated, lengthy and costly process to get a customers $12.99 back.

      Conjecture: Company profits will explode because product liability will be limited at the time the product is purchased with a known maximum liability.

      1,000,000 bottles sold at $10 per bottle, with 0.01% rate of serious illness leads to 100 possible claims against the company. 100 x $10 is $1000.00 and then insurance actuaries will write a policy for $10,000 and charge the company $250 a year....

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Conjecture: There will be repeated attempts to put shrinkwrap licenses or arbitration clauses on low-cost consumer products until there is a federal court legal precedent established.

        Once the precedent is established, every company will put a 'no matter what this product does to you, how ill you become, or if you die; the company's liability is limited to the original purchase price and all claims against the company must go individually 1 by 1 through a complicated, lengthy and costly process to get a customers $12.99 back.

        Conjecture: Company profits will explode because product liability will be limited at the time the product is purchased with a known maximum liability.

        1,000,000 bottles sold at $10 per bottle, with 0.01% rate of serious illness leads to 100 possible claims against the company. 100 x $10 is $1000.00 and then insurance actuaries will write a policy for $10,000 and charge the company $250 a year....

        I'm glad most civilised countries have dealt with this already by making shrinkwrap contracts void. You can't be held legally liable to a contract you could not have reasonably seen prior to agreeing to it, nor can your consent be given implicitly, for a contract to be binding it needs to be expressly agreed to.

        You definitely cant give up your statutory rights via a contract, let alone a shrinkwrap contract.

        The best a shrinkwrap contract can do is give limited liability against being sued for things e

    • No, everyone should be yelling at their congresscritters to ban this outright at the federal level. Failure to do so means that every product, (sadly, services already have these), is going to come with these get out of jail free cards for corporations.
    • Likely better to just open all the licenses on the shelf to help perspective buyers read them.

  • I'd say just open the bottle from the bottom instead or have your kids open it, but that would be giving this claptrap too much credit. Who even bothers to read shrinkwrap anyway? This is completely absurd.
    • by stooo ( 2202012 )

      Ignoring it is the attitude that lets this B.S. proliferate, and hurt you in the end.
      Return the stuff instead. Opened.

    • Re:lolwut? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @03:26AM (#64755174)

      ...until Disney claims that their shrinkwrap stuff forbids you to sue them for the death of your wife.

    • Most likely "breaking the seal" would include any method of exposing the bottles contents to the outside atmosphere, even if you didn't break the actual foil seal. The problem with this kind of BS is actually proving who broke the seal. Maybe a child, partner, friend broke the seal and you otherwise had no clue there was an EULA on the seal. How is that going to be enfoced?
  • If the contract refers to "services" and is talking about a web site, this may not be a problem. The purchaser probably did not know that a service was bundled with their vial of goo. Even if they did, they were probably aware that such services are usually subject to terms tha are disclosed on the web site. And if the web site is public, clearly they were not even purchasing that service.

    Does the contract actually say that the PRODUCT is subject to terms and waives liability? You can write anything in a co

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @12:43AM (#64754976)

      None of this bullshit is going to last 10 seconds in court.

      Corporations will make sure this ends up before the supreme court. Care to guess which way the ruling will fall?

      • by cstacy ( 534252 )

        None of this bullshit is going to last 10 seconds in court.

        Corporations will make sure this ends up before the supreme court. Care to guess which way the ruling will fall?

        I imagine my guess is the opposite of yours.
        We shall see.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

        Care to guess which way the ruling will fall?

        Does Clarence Thomas need a second RV?

    • In most states for a contract to be valid both parties must receive something of value. The company wants you to give up your right to sue in whatever court is appropriate, but doesn't state what they give you in return. For software it might be a license to use the copyrighted software, but for vitamins or other OTC medication it doesn't state what benefit you receive from agreeing to the contract.

      My guess is this is similar to the stickers on consumer products that state "opening this seal invalidates t

      • In most states for a contract to be valid both parties must receive something of value. The company wants you to give up your right to sue in whatever court is appropriate, but doesn't state what they give you in return.

        Attaching a contract to the product means the product is the thing of value provided, it just isn't provided unconditionally, and the payment you made for the product is the consideration that binds the contract. That has already been established in law. These contracts are legally valid.

        My guess is this is similar to the stickers on consumer products that state "opening this seal invalidates the warranty"

        No it's not. The whole opening the seal invalidates the warranty business would be a valid contract (as part of the purchase of the product - see above), but the issue is your can't contractually agree to break the law. The

        • The consumer receives no consideration. There is no contract.
          At the time the consumer opens the seal and allegedly agrees to a contract they have already purchased the product.
          The product is already the consumer's property so it can't be used as consideration for a new contract.

          • The consumer receives no consideration. There is no contract.

            You literally get the product with the conditions attached. The fact that you read it afterwards is not relevant. For the record your opinion on this is completely irrelevant. The concept you are discussion has been tested and accepted in law - you can buy a product with an attached contractual conditions, and it is *not* considered a new contract in any way.

            For the record of why your reasoning doesn't pass legal muster: For the contract to not be valid you need to be in a position for the contract to be ir

    • EULAs in general have a lot of problems. In this case, they apparently printed the EULA behind a URL which no person in the store at the time of purchase could conceivably be expected to look at. In the case of software (as we've long argued) the EULA doesn't make any sense because you agree to it after you purchase the thing. In that sense, I suppose, the EULA for this kind of product, which I'm sure is illegal, has more legitimacy than any of the software EULAs over the last thirty or so years.
      • I hate replying to my own post, but since Slashdot doesn't have an edit function after over twenty years, I have to do it this way.

        If the EULA is inside the top of the bottle, how the hell... Oh, I give up.

      • Your conditions are met with an ability for redress to the consumer. If the consumer has the right to unconditionally back out of the purchase if they don't agree the terms, it doesn't matter that they can't read the terms in the store, it matters that they have the ability to read the terms before opening the product. If the store doesn't accept refunds then you'd have a very strong case that the EULA wouldn't apply.

        • I see and agree with your point. In the case of software EULAs it's different. I know, not the original topic here. But before the age of buying software online through digital distribution services (e.g., Steam, GOG) there was a different issue. You go to the store, buy the software, get home, start to install software, and then get hit with a 15 page EULA. Most people just click through the damned thing, which I think any reasonable person would understand. On the other hand, if you try to return the item

    • The only contract here is between Wraithe (the consumer) and Costco, which was made at the point of sale. After the he owned the bottle and its contents. He has no contract with Vital Proteins at all.

      • by La Gris ( 531858 )

        They try to split it as:

        Your contract with Costco is to acquire a branded bottle with something in it.
        Then they want you to agree to a usage license if you want to ingest the content of the bottle.

        That's the very same model as when you buy a music album on a media CD, Vinyl, Cassette.
        The store and you contract to acquire the media.
        When you listen to the music, you "agree" to the usage license contract with the music publisher.

        I do not pretend it is fair. Just it is a known model of adding a usage license to

  • Binding arbitration (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @01:08AM (#64755014)

    Almost every terms of service these days includes a binding arbitration agreement. It's getting to the point where in many cases there is no alternative to acquiescing, since all the competitors are doing it, too. I'm sure that in 99% of cases, users just click "I Agree" and don't even realize that they are giving up important rights.

    The law needs to be changed so that whenever a customer is giving up their rights in this way, the company needs to first obtain an actual signature from the customer made in the physical presence of a notary public. Not only would this make it clear that they are signing away important rights, but it would also cut way down on all these nuisance contract terms. If a company really thinks that it can't risk being sued in court, it would still be free to instruct their customers to head down to their local credit union or UPS store, sit down with an associate, and sign the papers.

    • What's silly is arbitration is really expensive. Because you're basically hiring a judge to do arbitration as a private citizen. Expect a bill for $500-2500 and hour. You and the company would split that.

    • by mccalli ( 323026 )
      "The law needs to be changed so that whenever a customer is giving up their rights in this way..." - your law needs to be changed so that customers cannot give their rights up no matter what some slimy paper says. That's what makes them 'rights', as opposed to privileges.

      Not American hence use of 'your', but my country has some similar attempts once in a while (UK). To my knowledge they have never stood up at consumer level, though I believe it's possible in company negotiations.
      • The problem here is unequal negotiation, not the specific terms "agreed" upon. I'd see nothing wrong with, for example, "We'll pay you $X to agree to this extra term" as a separate clause you can accept or reject.

    • by dranga ( 520457 )
      If the agreement is via a URL that takes you to some web page, what's to stop someone from opening the page, opening up the web browser debugging and tweaking the HTML source code to take out the offending terms (or add new more fun ones), and submitting that, with a few screenshots/photos for evidence? I seem to recall it's ok to modify a contract before signing it, the other party can always reject the changes, because, they obviosuly will read them before accepting, won't they?
      • Funnily enough the DMCA.

        Specifically the anti-circumvention provisions in Section 1201.

        There is no technical reason you couldn't. Just legal. Just like there's nothing stopping say a teacher from stabbing they eyes of small children with pencils. Even if the pencil says don't do it, they still can!

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @01:08AM (#64755018) Homepage Journal

    Both parties have to have a similar understanding of a contract, and of course know they are agreeing to a contract. Sure there are judges out there that are dumb asses and want to ignore centuries of precedent.

    Additional, that I as a consumer would likely assume that something on a shelf is a Regular Sale means it is bound by the UCC and probably not by the legalese in the fine print.

    Expect different results from different appeals jurisdiction. Who knows what SCOTUS would do with it, but they're unlikely to ever pick it up.

    • Sure there are judges out there that are dumb asses and want to ignore centuries of precedent.

      Since you're such a stickler for precedent it should be noted that the precedent has been set that these contracts are in fact enforceable. To address your points directly:
      - Understanding of contract : That is on a per contract basis and depends on the wording of the contract. There's nothing about the nature of this contract that is relevant to this point.
      - Know they are agreeing : You have to be in a position to be required to agree to the contract in an reversable way. If the product can't be used withou

  • Change the law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by terminal.dk ( 102718 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @01:16AM (#64755048) Homepage

    In Denmark, Europe, shrinkwrap licenses are not valid for end users / consumers.

    The consumer is considere a weak party, and in a situation where he is not in a situation to negotiate the contract. Thus the contract can not be valid.

    A contract is considered an negotiated agreement between 2 uqla parties - both of which will gain something from it.

    It ios just like a signature put on a paper with a gun to your head is not binding. You are not in a position to negotiate.

    The USA should start to get some sensite consumer protection law (and citizenprotection laws)

    • The USA should start to get some sensite consumer protection law (and citizenprotection laws)

      In the USA, the citizens do not matter. Only businesses matter. Why spend time protecting things that do not matter?

  • Mandatory arbitration should be banned. It shouldn't be possible to sign away fundamental rights to legal recourse.

  • even if the vendor makes no warranty of fitness for purpose etc. (e.g. most - maybe all? - open source licenses).
  • Just opt-out! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pahles ( 701275 ) on Monday September 02, 2024 @02:25AM (#64755118)
    In the EULA:

    IF YOU ARE A NEW USER OF OUR SERVICES, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO REJECT THIS AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (“OPT-OUT”) BY MAILING US A WRITTEN OPT-OUT NOTICE (“OPT-OUT NOTICE”). THE OPT-OUT NOTICE MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME. YOU MUST MAIL THE OPT-OUT NOTICE TO VITAL PROTEINS, LLC,c/o Legal Department, 3400 Wolf Road, Franklin Park, Illinois, 60131. To be effective, your Opt-Out Notice must contain your name, address, and signature. This procedure is the only way you can opt out of the Arbitration Agreement. If you opt out of the Arbitration Agreement, all other parts of these Terms and Conditions will continue to apply to you. Opting out of this Arbitration Agreement has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.

    Just flood them with notices everyone!

    • Do you really want to send your signature to the kind of attorneys who write this crap in the first place? If they "accidentally" leak a thousand or so home address - signature collections to their more overtly criminal associates, there could be a fair amount of harm.

      Make a bunch of stickers that say "weird legal crap if you break the shrink wrap" and secretly put them on the shrink wrap so that the vendor has to break it to get them off. Soon after the news story breaks, the feds will require clear la
    • You've just opted-out. Now you can file a class action lawsuit. The class will consist of the dozen people who opted-out.
    • Lol I'm already opted out by not having read nor agreed to their terms. And how gullible do you have to be to pay money to send these creeps a copy of your signature and your personal info?

  • The EULA is for the web site, not for the product. It's linked from the homepage of the manufacturer's web site under "Terms and conditions".
    Just about every commercial web site has such a page. Even this one.

    Weird that it would be referred to on the supplement packaging. But still, I think someone had an axe to grind, or it was a very slow news day, or both.

      • by madbrain ( 11432 )

        TFS says that this is about http://vitalproteins.com/tc , which is in fact the terms of conditions for using the web site. Which makes no sense to impose on someone not even using said web site.

        I could not read what it says in the image you linked to, on account that it is printed very small, and the picture appears to be low resolution. If I were to encounter this seal in person, I probably could not read it, on account of my macular degeneration. Even with prescription glasses, I cannot read most FDA food

        • TFS is very long. If you stopped complaining and red it, you would have found the image I linked to. If you figured out how to zoom in, you'd be able to read the writing in the picture. No enhance functionality needed. Stop complaining and inform yourself.
          • by madbrain ( 11432 )

            I did of course previously zoom in Firefox using the mouse, which is one level of magnification. The text did not become readable. I just tried again with CTRL + repeatedly. It wasn't until the image filled the full height of my 32" monitor that the text became legible. I think the color choice makes it worse. Call it a complaint if you will, but to me it's an explanation.

            How legible is cyan text on a white background ?
            ChatGPT said:

            Cyan text on a white background generally has low legibility. The contrast b

        • Yes, but if you sign up for a free trial of Disney Plus, that gives Disney the right to poison your wife[1] 5 years later without recourse.

          [1] Probably also applies to husbands and other relatives.

  • How every software Terms of Service claiming copyrights or other extended rights over any data that you upload or even transmit thru their software/network could be valid or reasonable. Example is Google TOS. Says straight up in yo' face: We have copyrights over anything you upload.

    That more or less invalidates the meaning of copyrights for a writer or artist.

    How can that be considered "reasonable"? or legal?
  • This is a symptom of two roots of evil:

    1. Forced arbitration.
    2. Waiving negligence liability.

    Both of those should be made illegal. Unfortunately, a "liberal" scotus has said #1 is just fine. I'm not sure about #2, but probably same.

  • all liability and responsibilities inherent in the shrink wrapped license agreements of your employer.
  • The application of such a contract to a good where copyright has no scope, however, is something new.

    AFAIK there's not a single word in copyright law which explicitly mentions licenses. Having a shrinkwrap "contract" on a loaf of bread is no weirder than having it on a floppy disc. Oh, it is weird and a sign of bad faith by the seller, but it's not any weirder.

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...