General Mills Changes Policy After Internet Did Not 'Like' Its Plan To Remove Your Ability To Sue If You 'Liked' Its Facebook Page
from the just-trying-to-help dept
Following reports from last week about how cereal company General Mills had changed its privacy policy to preclude people from going to court if they so much as "liked" Cheerios on Twitter, the company has backtracked, changed its policy and admitted that consumers "didn't like" the new policy, though they insist it was all a misunderstanding:After throwing in some legalese (and admitting their lawyers made them do that), General Mills' director of external communications Kirstie Foster explained:As has been widely reported, General Mills recently posted a revised set of Legal Terms on our websites. Those terms – and our intentions – were widely misread, causing concern among consumers.
So we’ve listened – and we’re changing them back to what they were before.
We rarely have disputes with consumers – and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled. Many companies do the same, and we felt it would be helpful.
But consumers didn’t like it.
We’ll just add that we never imagined this reaction. Similar terms are common in all sorts of consumer contracts, and arbitration clauses don’t cause anyone to waive a valid legal claim. They only specify a cost-effective means of resolving such matters. At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood.That first paragraph is not entirely accurate. While similar claims do exist in all sorts of consumer contracts (and, contrary to the statement, they often do cause people to effectively waive valid legal claims), they tend to exist in actual contracts. That is, not in a website privacy policy or terms of use -- which is what made General Mills' effort so notable.
Not that any of that matters now.
On behalf of our company and our brands, we would also like to apologize. We’re sorry we even started down this path. And we do hope you’ll accept our apology. We also hope that you’ll continue to download product coupons, talk to us on social media, or look for recipes on our websites.
Again, there is a simple solution to all of this. It should be clear that simply throwing up a "terms of use" page has no direct legal impact, especially if there's no evidence that anyone has actually read it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arbitration, cheerios, contracts, legal terms
Companies: general mills
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Translation:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or everyone at General Mills was to fscking stupid to understand how these words would read outside the fishbowl.
Perhaps it might be best to fire the lawyers who suggested such a stupid idea and managed to undo much of the goodwill your corporation had managed to gain.
Perhaps rather than trying to execute legal agreements to show us your intentions, perhaps being straightforward about those intentions would have been for the best. I doubt we misread your terms, I think you're just trying to salvage flushing a large amount of goodwill to make some lawyer happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll give them this much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll give them this much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean its not like we have to ask nicely to get products that kill people recalled.
We don't have to worry that corporations who pollute might declare bankruptcy to avoid having to clean up spills.
We don't have to worry that unknown chemicals are being pumped into the ground and then dumped, because some words on paper call them trade secrets.
Er... wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is another case of Big Corp trying to slippery slope everyone into a huge 'give up our rights' campaign that has been running for several decades now.
Does your government care to protect you? Nope... not even the Liberals whom spin their excessive tripe won't even bother to protect their ever so precious minorities here either.
Left or Right... they want you to become a slave. You can already have your home invaded, arrested and strip searched and enema'd, shot dead, or beat dead by a cop if they 'think' you are up to no good. Hear much outcry by our precious leaders about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Minorities", code for people-darker-than-me, must apparently all be "liberals". Marco Rubio? Impostor. Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas? Closeted libs, and, therefore, dirty liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's why I said "their minorities"
I don't care if you are a minority a majority, or left or right. If your eyes are glazed over in support of your favored party as they wreck this nation, you are not worthy of freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, please. Who is "the left" you're talking about? It sounds like you're talking about the made-up cartoon version of "the left" As Shown On TV.
Can we please drop the phony left/right dichotomy already? It's distracting us from the real divisions in our nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, I am not the one promoting it. Just using it.
I would love to see it go away, but you will never get rid of the diehard party animals, its human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Using it is promoting it. Instead of using the term "the left" (and incorrectly at that), why not specify the actual group of people you're talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The left, is generally a term used to describe people that are generally NOT moderate or generally NOT conservative. Typically a Democrat but not always, and possibly a Republican as well.
People who tend to be more socialist than not. Everyone shares a socialist value or two myself included.
I generally accept that the right (oops!) are typically so pro-business/free market that it negatively impacts this nation. And the point of my original argument is the the Left (Those in power that think more commonly on a socialistic level) seem to vote in people that "SAY" they are against this, while actually supporting it and bathing in the same corruption that the right does!
No one (in gov left or right) are protecting people/organizations from putting in legal jargon limiting provisions people can use to attempt legal remedy when someone borks up. that was my point, the reason I picked on the left more that they are more responsible from a societal point of view because they talk against it so much while actually making it worse (most lawyers are left). I might be wrong, I might be right... but I believe I am right. There you can take me to task if you are so inclined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your mind-reading has failed you. I am trying to keep the argument out of the weeds of the left/right paradigm, because it's impossible to have an honest discussion of any topic whatsoever when it's cloaked in those terms.
"Try to be more intelligent"
OK, you got me. I was being an idiot by thinking that I could have an interesting conversation with you when it turns out you just want to sling insults around. Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What we've got is the ILLUSION of a left-liberal/right dichotomy presented by the lamestream media. They use this to pretend we have a choice.
Meanwhile, on the Far Right, some people have convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is a terrorist while others declare that membership of the other team automatically means they can't agree with them on anything.
Neither of these assertions are true. There are Dems who love guns as much as Republicans do, would you believe? And liberals aren't known for committing terrorist acts.
The Progressives are actually a subgroup of the Democratic Party and don't have much power at the moment. The ruling group is actually center right, and has been since Clinton. That's why there's not much of a difference between the two parties. Mind you, when there was, they were unelectable.
The point is, we have a center-right government that has been identified as liberal-left because they're not the Republican Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(let me know if that works)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
May I suggest a minor change to your TOS:
By loading this page, you agree to . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There.. even better ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being in the same existential plane, universe or set of universes is an infringement upon space that may or may not be personally relevant, and necessitates that you pay a fine of $100 for every second you commit this clearly gross act of infringement; this clause cannot be broken or challenged. (I mean, duh, any fool could understand this, so we don't have to ask a judge.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They did, however, apply to printing out coupons, and did include a secrecy clause, which makes the arbitration clause twice as bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who�s stupid now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and
"and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled."
are NOT two sentences I ever expected to see connected by a single spacebar press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why bother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]