Clicking 'Like' can cancel your right to sue a company

[A Guy]

Want to save 50 cents on your cereal?

Better watch out. Downloading that coupon or even clicking "Like" on the cereal maker's Facebook page could cost you the right to sue the company, given the direction US companies are taking.

How did that come about?

As the New York Times reports, the US Fortune 500 food company General Mills is perhaps the first company to impose a new legal stricture, what's known as "forced arbitration", on consumers.

Specifically, General Mills quietly amended its website language recently to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they interact with it online in just about any way, the NYT reports.

Source

A Guy

 

[carwiz]

Nothing new about that except General Mills is catching up with everyone else. Nearly all companies have an arbitration clause somewhere in their contracts. The problem is that it's not a contract unless both parties agree to it.

 

[UsernameIssues]

If the websites states something to like:
By clicking Like, you agree that you have read and accepted........

Is that not a contract?
Assuming that the person doing the clicking is able to enter a contract.
e.g. not a child or cat

 

[carwiz]

If you agree to the terms and the terms include clicking on Like, then yes. You have agreed to the terms of the contract. That's nothing new. It happens just about every time you visit a website or download software. It pays to read every contract you "sign". Most folks don't but you do have a choice.

Have you read the terms of use for this site?

 

[ThrashZone]

I personally don't get why companies are allowed on Facebook,
But then again I don't get Facebook either ?
I don't see how this is in anyway a contract,
Arbitration is normal if you agree to in terms of use but I've never seen a disclaimer above the Like buttons either,
So unless it's a secondary popup after using like and has a Cancel button with it ?
Otherwise Dislike

 

[The Nude Dude]

and this folks is why you do not use your real name on social media sites.

 

[margrave]

"Click like and you cannot sue" sounds like a sweeping generalization.
More likely ... you may not sue for anything gone wrong on the web site at which you made the agreement.
Still ... exactly what could you get (or not get) from their web site that you'd ever sue for?
I think this is a canard.

But if you get sick from eating their cereal ... that stands outside of any agreement made on (or off) their web site, and you could sue.

 

[Britton30]

As far as I know a US citizen cannot give up the right to legal and due processes under the law. Further it's illegal to ask someone to do it so the company's amendments would not be enforced.

 

[derekimo]

General Mills: Legal Terms

The part in red is probably what all the fuss is about...

ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM MADE BY YOU AGAINST GENERAL MILLS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR PURCHASE OR USE OF ANY GENERAL MILLS SERVICE OR PRODUCT (INCLUDING GENERAL MILLS PRODUCTS PURCHASED AT ONLINE OR PHYSICAL STORES FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD USE) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE OR CLAIM IS BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT, STATUTE, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY (TOGETHER, A “DISPUTE”) WILL BE RESOLVED BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS OR THROUGH BINDING ARBITRATION, AS DESCRIBED BELOW.

Informal negotiations
To expedite resolution and control the cost of a Dispute, you and General Mills agree to first attempt to resolve a Dispute informally for at least thirty (30) days before initiating any arbitration. Such informal negotiations will commence upon written notice from one party to the other. You must send your notice to *Removed*. Please include in the subject line of the email “Request to Negotiate.”

Arbitration procedures
If you and General Mills are unable to resolve a Dispute through informal negotiations, either you or General Mills may elect to have a Dispute resolved by binding arbitration by notifying the other party of such election. Either party also may choose to seek relief in a small claims court for a Dispute within the scope of its jurisdiction, instead of arbitration. To make this election, the small claims court action must be commenced before either party notifies the other of an election to arbitrate the Dispute, but after the conclusion of the informal negotiation period described above. If neither party has validly commenced a small claims court action for a Dispute, any election to arbitrate the Dispute by one party will immediately become final and binding on the other.

You and General Mills agree to waive the right to litigate any Dispute in court (except in small claims court in the limited circumstances described above) and before a jury and agree that this arbitration provision will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act to the maximum extent permitted by law. You and General Mills also agree that any arbitrator that arbitrates a Dispute under this provision is without jurisdiction to conduct a class arbitration or other representative proceeding, and may not consolidate one person’s claims with another.

You and General Mills agree that all issues of enforceability of this agreement to arbitrate – including issues relating to scope, validity, and unconscionability – will be decided by the arbitrator. If for any reason this arbitration provision is deemed inapplicable or invalid, you and General Mills both waive, to the fullest extent allowed by law, the right to a jury trial and any claims relating to a Dispute to recover punitive or exemplary damages and any right to pursue any claims on a class or consolidated basis or in a representative capacity. These waivers shall also apply to any proceeding in small claims court.

 

[Britton30]

Ah, that seems to say no class action suits.

 

[ThrashZone]

Wonder if they'll start printing that on their products

 

[King Arthur]

e.g. not a child or cat

The GaMERCaT - Does Not Compute

 

[lehnerus2000]

This is why the US shouldn't be allowed to set the rules for international business practices.

The US Government lets Corporations get away with (basically) every scam their legal departments attempt (GFC anyone?).
"Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations."

I even heard one nut job (US politician or banker) say the GFC was caused because the US Government passed laws against criminal behaviour, so banks were forced to invent new ways to act in a criminally irresponsible manner.
[Obviously the "C" word wasn't mentioned.]

Our cowardly politicians basically kowtow to anything that the US allows/pushes (TPP, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, etc.).

On the bright side, soon we will be kowtowing to the Chinese Government's business regulations.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ..."

 

[Britton30]

NEWS! The US does not set international practices. Any US company that operates outside of the US must adhere to whatever local law they operate in. The EU was not a US invention and as I understand it isn't well liked in Europe.

MS tried to exert it's US muscle over there and has been fines and sanctioned a few times.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Something weird happened.
See post #18.

 

[Britton30]

Well crap Peter, here I though it was Australia that cause the US big problems. All your link are crap pertaining to the stupid SOPA stuff, not businesses practices. We don't want/need SOPA anyway, and your examples only cite Spain...Spain. That "news" is 2-6 years old too.

 

[andrew129260]

Now now you two, play nice

 

[lehnerus2000]

(Note: some of ths comment was originally in post #15)

So the US Government will come out and publicly strike down this type of clause?
I'm not holding my breath.

NEWS! The US does not set international practices.

It just doesn't tell the US population that it is doing that.

What do you think the purpose of ACTA, PIPA, SOPA, TPP, etc. are actually about?

Spain was (secretly) threatened with sanctions, if it didn't implement a SOPA-like policy

In a letter dated 12 December and obtained by Spanish newspaper El Pais, US ambassador Alan Solomont wrote to the outgoing Spanish prime minister expressing his concern about the lack of movement on a online piracy bill, known as the Sinde law.
"The government has unfortunately failed to finish the job for political reasons, to the detriment of the reputation and economy of Spain," reads the letter to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. The letter was also sent to minister of culture Ángeles González-Sinde, after whom the law is named.

Spain would go on to pass Sinde at the start of this year.

In his letter, Solomont issued veiled threats, reminding its recipients that Spain is on the Special 301, the US trade representatives' list of countries that do not provide "adequate and effective" protection of intellectual property rights. Spain risks having its position on the list "degraded", and could join the real blacklist of "the worst violators of global intellectual property rights."

Leaked: US Threatened Spain to Implement Online Piracy Law

US threatened Spain over web censorship laws - Neowin
US threatens Spain: pass SOPA-style censorship or else | NGEmu
​

Why do you think that all trade negotiations with the US are done in secret (i.e. non-US citizens aren't allowed to know what is being traded away)?

No explanations are ever given as to why it is in anyone's interest to prop up US Corporations (especially MPAA and RIAA members).
How does protecting MPAA and RIAA members, benefit Australia or any other country (apart from the US)?
IMO, it is doubtful that it even benefits the US.

Any US company that operates outside of the US must adhere to whatever local law they operate in. The EU was not a US invention and as I understand it isn't well liked in Europe.

Businesses must obey the local laws.
If the local laws have been determined by US treaties like ACTA, PIPA, SOPA, TPP, etc. then they are obeying US created law.

The EU was not a US invention and as I understand it isn't well liked in Europe.

The EU is Europe's attempt to replicate the USA (i.e. create a USE).
As such, they want to replicate the way the US deals with issues.

Almost everyone hates the Federal Government regardless of the country (US, Euro countries, Australia, Canada, etc.).

Aren't there literally 1000s of people hiding out in the US, stockpiling weapons and ammo to protect themselves from the Feds?

MS tried to exert it's US muscle over there and has been fines and sanctioned a few times.

Presumably MS was not in the US Government's "Good Books" at those times.

The point is that if the US Government would clamp down on dodgy behaviour, our scumbag politicians would be willing take action knowing that they weren't going to upset the US (resulting in threats of sanctions).

A example that applies specifically to this forum is software.
You can't take action against software companies for substandard coding, because the US says that you can't (apparently as a result of IBM lobbying the US Government in the '80s).

This is why we still see stuff like "Heartbleed".
Seems like the old "failure to check input vs expected input" problem to me.
One of the earliest things you are told when you do programming courses, is to validate your inputs.


Additional
How did that happen?
I hadn't finished typing my reply and it somehow appeared on the forum.

Well crap Peter, here I though it was Australia that cause the US big problems. All your link are crap pertaining to the stupid SOPA stuff, not businesses practices. We don't want/need SOPA anyway, and your examples only cite Spain...Spain. That "news" is 2-6 years old too.

2011-2012?

TPP is happening right now.

 

[Britton30]

HEh, heh, Pete, you're an Aussie pollie aren't you?

 

[margrave]

As far as I know a US citizen cannot give up the right to legal and due processes under the law. Further it's illegal to ask someone to do it so the company's amendments would not be enforced.

That pertains to criminal cases.
Contract disputes are matter for civil courts.