Homeless in Vancouver: What's not to "like" about General Mills?

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The makers of the Cheerios breakfast cereal, and other “food” products are quietly telling their customers that if they use the company’s coupons or other product promotions—including any of its online social-media iterations—they forfeit their legal rights to sue the company or participate in group litigation actions.

      General Mills’ announced the changes to its legal terms on April 15 on its website.

      In exchange for any benefits the customers may receive or have access to by using any General Mills website, including Facebook, they voluntarily agree to General Mills’ binding arbitration clause and class-action waiver.

      Using social media against its customers

      Most reports lead with the can’t sue them if you “like” them on Facebook angle, but it’s far worse than that.

      Quoting from the General Mills Legal Terms, paragraph one:

       In exchange for the benefits, discounts, content, features, services, or other offerings that you receive or have access to by using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community, subscribing to our email newsletters, downloading or printing a digital coupon, entering a sweepstakes or contest, redeeming a promotional offer, or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering, you are agreeing to these terms. (My emphasis added.)

      You don’t even have to use an offer. Simply visiting a website that contains a General Mills offer is enough to legally bind you.

      The language is so vague that for all I know, simply standing in a supermarket containing General Mills' products printed with coupons may signal that you agree to the company’s legal terms.

      What you are agreeing to is private arbitration and to utterly waive your right to take your dispute with the company any further than small claims court—no jury trials. No big damage awards.

      The most amazing thing about this isn’t the breathtaking contempt the company is displaying for its customers, it’s that no one’s laughing; General Mills is getting clean away with it.

      So-called forced arbitration clauses are already common in cellphone contracts and credit-card applications and General Mills, apparently feeling its oats, is attempting to take “cover your ass” to the next level.

      Many corporations, hoping to follow General Mills’ lead, will be closely watching how this all plays in the courts—particularly courts in the United States.

      These terms are clearly aimed at litigious Americans and the monstrous damages the U.S. legal system can award, but the terms do not exclude consumers in any other countries.

      According to a report in the Globe and Mail, General Mills would have trouble in Canada.

      Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta already have explicit legal provisions that restrict such clauses or declare them invalid in many cases.

      Even in British Columbia, where such forced arbitration clauses still carry weight, judges have been reluctant to block class-action cases. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly allowed a proposed class-action in B.C. launched against Telus Inc. over cellphone fees to go ahead, despite the mandatory arbitration clauses.

      Stanley Q. Woodvine is a homeless resident of Vancouver who has worked in the past as an illustrator, graphic designer, and writer.

      Comments