General Mills quickly reversed its website's controversial new legal policies.
Last week when General Mills changed their website's legal policies they quietly added language to its website to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons, "join" it in online communities like Facebook, enter a company-sponsored sweepstakes, or contest/interact with it in a variety of other ways.
It wasn't long before General Mills tried to clarify its position, stating that consumers "joining our online communities" could not sue the company, did not apply to people who visit its Facebook pages and Twitter accounts.
Yesterday, General Mills announced a stunning about-face regarding its controversial plans to make consumers give up their right to sue.
(Score: 5, Funny) by skullz on Monday April 21 2014, @10:34PM
"Because our terms and intentions were widely misunderstood, causing concerns among our consumers, we've decided to change them back to what they were," Mike Siemienas, a company spokesman, wrote in the email.
Shocked, shocked, I tell you! Ungrateful peasants, wanting their rights and all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2014, @09:43PM
Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, who played for the treatment of breast, stomach, nausea and headaches. Obviously, within that time, CAMEX is subject to the mat after being cracked in the sea, though price tag at $300 billion., online casino play free [onlinecasi...action.com], [url="http://onlinecasinoaustraliaaction.com/"]onl ine casino play free[/url], haeve,
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday April 21 2014, @10:48PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday April 22 2014, @07:20AM
How did they intend to prove you have visited the website and are bound by these terms? An IP doesn't equate to a person. Maybe using an email address as registration? Would a husband lose his rights to sue if his wife downloaded a coupon? What if a minor downloaded a coupon (or the email address of a minor was used for registration) - would they be bound by these terms but not the parents? Could General Mills try to apply their terms to an entire household?
Does a $0.50 coupon meet the minimum legal threshold to qualify as consideration for this "contract"? How about a $1.00 coupon?
It all seems extremely over reaching. Why not simply print their new EULA terms on the inside of the box the way software companies do? That would take care of anyone who purchased their products and not just the web visitors.
(Score: 2) by michealpwalls on Monday April 21 2014, @10:49PM
I have always found it to be very odd that a License Agreement can waive such fundamental rights. One of the largest ISPs in Canada has a much more dubious license agreement, in my opinion.
The ISP's license waives your right to free speech (essentially) by barring you from "publishing" any opinion of the company or their services without their "written permission". It also bars you from suing them or from joining a class action lawsuit against them, among other ridiculous clauses.
(Score: 1) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday April 22 2014, @01:28PM
Which one?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 21 2014, @10:51PM
*sigh* General Mills is on my blacklist, now.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 21 2014, @11:01PM
All corporations of any notable size are on my blacklist.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Monday April 21 2014, @11:19PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Funny) by bornagainpenguin on Tuesday April 22 2014, @12:47PM
No, that's how he black lists them. ;P
(Score: 4, Insightful) by black6host on Monday April 21 2014, @10:54PM
Albeit a subset of what General Mills had tried I am growing extremely weary of companies who are driving interaction with their customers to social media sites.
I have no desire, nor should I be required, to effectively enter into a legal agreement with a third party (take Facebook for example) and agree to that party's TOS in order to conduct business with or receive support from an unrelated company I did business with.
Peterson Tuners, makers of tuners, both hard and software, moved their support over to Facebook. I sent them a nice email stating I'd never do business with them again. Why should I have to agree to Facebook's legal invasion of my privacy to receive support for a product I bought from a completely different company?
So many companies are jumping on this bandwagon. Every time I see "Like us on Facebook" or "Follow us on Twitter" I feel like their begging me to support them, and in the process give up my privacy and support a social media site I could not care less about. This isn't a high school popularity contest folks.
My brother owns a company and his website is bland as oatmeal and has the usual Twitter, Facebook and G+ icons (only 1 follower there, probably my brother...) Not to mention a youtube vid that is boring as hell and says nothing of value about his company. I'm quite confident he was told by his peers and the website developer that "you have to be on social media, it's the in thing".
We already have a mechanism by which companies can support their customers, provide product information, run forums etc. It's called the internet.
Truly the most egregious of all this stuff is the requirement that I accept the TOS of an unrelated business so the company I *used* to do business with can improve their advertising and take advantage of all the marketing data these social sites sell. All at the expense of my privacy. Sure you can block some of the invasion but keeping up with all the twists and turns involved there is just more work for me. And I don't want more work, I just want support for a product I've purchased.
What a pile of crap.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22 2014, @04:13PM
of here in the US, before Dr.'s will see you, even in the ER, you must agree to sign pages upon pages of legalese giving up certain rights. No sign, no Dr., it's completely up to the folks in the ER (legality is irrelevant, what happens in the real world to actual people is the only thing that matters). An "emergency clinic" in the US made me sign to never sue them, even if due to negligence on their part before anyone would even see me (I couldn't walk, I crawled in, clearly in serious distress). I would've signed anything at that point, and I did. Because Americans have shown to be so horribly unethical, I think it should be illegal to require anyone sign any papers what-so-ever in order to get medical care. Yes I understand the implications. When I got sick in Germany I was seen, diagnosed, and a treatment prescribed first, and then signed papers afterward, and as far as I remember, I signed-away none of my basic rights.