That’s concerning.
Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.
🇺🇸
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…
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.
And fuck the American Arbitration Association.
Now that it’s opened slightly, return it “immediately”
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.
I think having someone open if for you still counts. You’d have to already find one opened.
Leave it in a workplace fridge with a clear sticker saying “MIKES DO NOT TOUCH”
Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind
Go one step further and have someone under 18 who cannot legally enter into a contract open it haha
Contractual malicious compliance let’s go
Yeah but just to be clear, the terms are likely there for a reason and using this product probably has risks associated.
The only product I want to use with a liability waiver attached is the bungie cord at the fair.
Apparently, it’s full of lead.
Why would a bungee cord have lead?
Weight makes you go faster
I think it should be “and/or” because if it’s just “or” than the terms would only apply if you either open it or use it.
No, that’s xor
all that jazz for a protein supplement?
You even get some heavy metals included for free! What a bargain
One full of toxic heavy metals.
Supplement purity is hard, yo.
At the board meeting, I want to hear when they decided to broadcast that they’re expecting to get sued, but in a really cute way
Make your own opening elsewhere on the package.
You’re still opening it.
But if you have your friend open it, then you are not opening and consuming the product.
Of course, with such draconian rules, one should not drink that stuff anyway.
Some one should sue them for the maximum highest costs calculable for the travel time of having to return their products buying a new substitute brand, and going back home + legal fees.
Then that person should buy the product again to see if there’s still an agreement in place, and sue them again.
return it after opening and consuming. the text does not say if you do not agree do not open. nor does it say you can’t agree, open, then disagree.
“I went to the url but it was just a 404, honest. No terms, no conditions”
Did… Did someone MAKE you buy that?
It sure looks like this is displayed after peeling back the very top layer that is still slightly attached at the top right in the image.
So they most likely did not know this was a thing when they purchased it.
Open it. Return it. Repeat.
Lmfao protein additives (or whatever that is) now come with a EULA…? What a time to be alive 🫠
Interesting how we’ve all become accustomed to the notion that “agreeing to arbitration” has just become “waving your consumer rights” and no lawmaker is pushing to have that fixed.
no lawmaker is pushing to have that fixed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_Repeal_Act
Was reintroduced several times, Passed the house once. Republicans keep killing it in committee.
There’s also the Justice for workers Act specifically for employer force arbitration, more recently
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_Repeal_Act
Don’t be too lazy with your both sides bullshit.
The Senate version of the bill, S.505, has 39 cosponsors, all of them being Democrats.[6]
Shit like this is rarely enforceable but in order to find out, you need to have money.
What I like to do is clap back and send them my own terms and conditions, with the stipulation that if they don’t write back, then they are accepting them.
Ever had any replies?
Oddly no but I suspect that it’s either due to them not caring enough for one person doing this or them thinking their T&Cs will prevail in court.
For me, I don’t see a loss. Either my contract doesn’t hold up, which means that I only lose time and money or it does hold up in which case I lose time and they (and every other company that has clauses where you accept terms by continuing services) loses their contract terms.
If it ever came to it, I would bet the company would choose to settle rather than risk a president being set.
That’s actually legally binding, still do long as it’s ensured mail (or whatever your country calls it when a signature is required to accept the package).
Just fyi, a biased judge could hold you to even the tiniest loophole the company might find if you send them terms that you define without their input. Still totally do it (IANAL), but you might want to either use boilerplate language whose implications you fully understand or run it by a lawyer.
