General Mills now requires disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration

[bleh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?_r=0

"We've updated our Privacy Policy," the company wrote in a thin, gray bar across the top of its home page. "Please note we also have new Legal Terms which require all disputes related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved through binding arbitration."
The change in legal terms, which occurred shortly after a judge refused to dismiss a case brought against the company by consumers in California, made General Mills one of the first, if not the first, major food companies to seek to impose what legal experts call "forced arbitration" on consumers.
"Although this is the first case I've seen of a food company moving in this direction, others will follow — why wouldn't you?" said Julia Duncan, director of federal programs and an arbitration expert at the American Association for Justice, a trade group representing plaintiff trial lawyers. "It's essentially trying to protect the company from all accountability, even when it lies, or say, an employee deliberately adds broken glass to a product."

Hopefully this doesn't hold up in court as I can see all food manufacturers updating their legal terms.

[CMdeux]

Ugh is right.

Yikes.

[twinturbo]

Great find, bleh. I'm going to forward this to my husband as well. I know he'll be as professionally interested as he will be personally. How did you come across it?

I'd have to see this hold up first. At the end it mentions it would entail a subpoena for electronic devices searching for proof that a consumer did actually seek and receive benefit in the form of an electronic coupon that had the implied consent terms. It's like those checks you receive in the mail that state by depositing it you conceded to the terms of settlement from a class action suit.

Avoid those social media and online coupons. They come at a cost. The way to boycott at this point is refuse them any further consumer data. I guarantee they will not like that.

I think they're also delusional as far as how much protection this will insulate them from class action lawsuits because it's about the food. Well, what about the consumer data itself? The value social media is able to garner siphoning from users to companies. The entire chain is not immune from action.

[LinksEtc]

"General Mills Says If You 'Like' It On Facebook, You Can Never Sue The Company"
http://www.businessinsider.com/general-mills-lawsuits-facebook-likes-2014-4

------------

"General Mills (GIS) Facebook Backlash: Could Arbitration Fairness Act Nullify Policy That Sparked Outcry?"
http://www.ibtimes.com/general-mills-gis-facebook-backlash-could-arbitration-fairness-act-nullify-policy-sparked-1573312

This is what it looks like when social media users eat a multinational cereal company for breakfast.

But there is a fix, Schwartz added. The Arbitration Fairness Act, a bill that has been winding its way through the legislative process for the last five years, would prevent forced arbitration in any employment, consumer, antitrust or civil rights dispute.

[LinksEtc]

"General Mills Legal Policy Change Spooks Facebook Fans"
http://mashable.com/2014/04/17/general-mills-facebook-like/

A rep for General Mills, though, now says those communities don't include Facebook.

When asked what a consumer should do, Richard Daynard, Northeastern Distinguished Professor of Law, responded, "A smart consumer would actually not buy General Mills products."

[CMdeux]

Well, that's certainly clear enough, isn't it?  He work(ed) FOR big-G??  Whoahhh.   

[SilverLining]

Companies were bound to come up with some way of stopping the frivolous suits. (Three million dollars because some woman thought a chocolate spread was healthy?)

Unfortunately, they are going beyond and attempting to prevent legitimate suits as well.

[Macabre]

General Mills is based here, so this was on local public radio.

I'll see if I can find one of the stories. it was good.

[Macabre]

Listen, don't read:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/17/general-mills-binding-arbitration


General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said people are misinterpreting and exaggerating the scope of the policy. No one is precluded from suing General Mills merely by purchasing products in stores, he wrote in an email.

But Siemienas said, "should an individual subscribe to one of our publications or download coupons, these terms would apply. But even then, the policy would not and does not preclude a consumer from pursuing a claim. It merely determines a forum for pursuing a claim. And arbitration is a straightforward and efficient way to resolve such disputes."

[bleh]

Great find, bleh. I'm going to forward this to my husband as well. I know he'll be as professionally interested as he will be personally. How did you come across it?

I saw it on gizmodo.

[SilverLining]

Has GM removed their Facebook page? 

I found General Mills Canada. The only things there about this is a post made by an individual (not a company rep) saying they are sleazy and posting a picture about it.

Shooting themselves in the foot with social media?  And this may not hold up in court at all.

~~~~

Does anyone know where the arbitrators come from?  Are they on retainer by GM?

[bleh]

It looks like they may have FB pages based on their various brands as I see a facebook page for cheerios. They do have a GM gives facebook page where someone posted "GM gives...and takes away."

[bleh]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0

In an email received Thursday, Mike Siemienas, a General Mills spokesman, said the “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites. He later elaborated in a second email: “No one is precluded from suing us merely by purchasing our products at the store or liking one of our brand Facebook pages. For example, should an individual subscribe to one of our publications or download coupons, these terms would apply. But even then, the policy would not and does not preclude a consumer from pursuing a claim. It merely determines a forum for pursuing a claim. And arbitration is a straightforward and efficient way to resolve such disputes.

But if General Mills offers a consumer a coupon in exchange for “liking” one of its brands on Facebook, she will still have to agree to the new terms to get it, Mr. Siemienas said.”

[twinturbo]

Was there any EFF crossover interest?

[Macabre]

I see the word "eff" above and can only think it means one thing--and that one thing makes a lot of sense here. But I bet it's bit what you were intending.