• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Ah! that one of the worst parts of the internet, and they’ve figured out a way to make it real.

    At least they mention the arbitration upfront, I guess.

  • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Write on the money you used to purchase this by accepting this money you agree to the terms of service…

    Eat shit turdblossoms.

  • SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Mandatory arbitration agreement for a protein shake or whatever it is. First it may not be enforceable. Second it makes me think that this product is not fit for consumption.

    • S0ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      I wonder if we’re not fucking ourselves.

      “Not enforceable” may have been a thing of the past, with the way technology has developed. We may be approaching a point where terms & conditions ARE enforceable.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That’s not generally allowed in contact law.

    Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process and likely won’t notice it.

    And it’s not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non-English speaker? Farsighted? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case?

    Also, they’ll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn open when it shipped to you and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren’t the case.

    Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It actually does have legal precident. You know how you can’t read or accept the EULA for software until after you purchase it?

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        They get away with stuff like that when they have sold you a “license” to their software, rather than something you gave actually purchased outright. It is argued that a license is a an agreement to access a software product, rather than ownership of it, and putting an EULA in between your license purchase or changing it later doesn’t affect your purchase because you continue to hold the license even if you choose not to agree to the terms necessary to use it. It’s a bit different for a physical item that you have actual ownership over, not a license to use it (pending agreement).

        I also find all of that to be loophole bullshit that should be fixed, but that’s a separate issue.

      • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        While true, the software put it in your face and forces you to interact with a screen that says “EULA”. I doubt using a consumable as intended will hold any jurisprudence. But then again look who we have appointing judges right now…

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Absofuckinglutely

      If I bought it and got home and found this, I’d return it as I have before. You’re not trapping me into agreeing for anything without the notice on the OUTSIDE of the product packaging. Fuck this

      • Bosht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Plus it speaks volumes to the product itself. If they’re trying to pull shit like this there’s no way I’m trusting whatever they’re trying to get me to put in my body.

  • Part4@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Is there a bigger red flag than a message on it saying ‘if you break this seal you can’t sue us!’

      • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Attorney: -calls witness, a physicist- Physicist: “by simply observing this product, even without opening it, your clients life was changed in some way.” Attorney: “crazy label people, pay up!”

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    There’s an easy solution: keep buying it, break the seal to get to the message, then return it. Have your friends do the same, at the same store. Pretty soon that product will be gone and you can move on to the next store.

    If the store starts to bitch about it, you can claim that you wanted to see if the statement had been removed.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Add to this the fact they try to enforce mandatory arbitration - a thing that shouldn’t ever exist to begin with, in any jurisdiction, and is actually unenforceable in many.

  • zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    290
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It says you’re bound by “opening and using” the product, rather than “opening or using”. Have someone else open it for you. Then neither of you have done both.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    ·
    15 hours ago

    This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and “foreign materials” contamination in their products.

  • Albbi@lemmy.ca
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?

    • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Well, the purchase is probably already made by the time this is seen, and for those who see it, they probably just ignore it similarly to EULA popups when installing programs.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      The same way millions of fucking morons regular non-political people voted for drumpf: they thought, “well all politicians are bad, so it’s not like voting for a bad guy is bad.”

      Most companies have loads of legalese attempting to protect themselves. Contrary to popular belief, that does not make them all equal.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          An analogy doesn’t have to be identical to never the less share similarities. I even spelled out the part to consider: Just because two things are bad does not make them equally bad.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      You know how all these companies are making it lives shittier?

      Well people are what companies are. And people are the absolute fucking worst.

      And unfortunately there are on orders of magnitude more shitty people who don’t run the worst companies in existence than there are people who work for the worst of companies that are making them what they are.

      Find your people, the ones that don’t suck, because there are a lot more people who only want what’s convenient for them and can’t spare one spark of concern for all of the consequences that affect entirely too many people that don’t want their decisions

    • PaulBunyan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Are you saying poop can be religious? It’s an inanimate object so I disagree. Your whole comment is dumb.

      See I ignored the rest and just assumed. That’s how.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Just wait until you hear about holy water.

        I do get the point of your comment, but I couldn’t resist

        Edit: it’s also funny as hell that you got downvoted, thereby proving your point. People really don’t read to the end of things

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      15 hours ago

      They’ll drag out any legal challenge in hopes you won’t want to pay for months of legal fees fighting it, on top of whatever legal fees are incurred that caused you to challenge it in the first place…

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Sometimes mandatory arbitration doesn’t work out so well for companies either as Valve found out. When they run into what are effectively class action lawsuits but they get forced into individual arbitration with hundreds of thousands of people that clause starts to look really dumb.