This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and “foreign materials” contamination in their products.
I dont want to enter a contract when consuming your product..
Submitted 3 months ago by Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/e9f377aa-3bdf-4949-954a-8784bbcf7542.jpeg
Comments
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and “foreign materials” contamination in their products. Do you have any supporting links? I saw a reddit post saying something similar but I cant find a real article or support. Either way I am returning the product.
athairmor@lemmy.world 3 months ago
oag.ca.gov/system/files/…/2017-02480C5316.pdf
Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’
Sued by an environmental nonprofit for failing to warn about the presence of lead and heavy metals as required by CA law. They settled.
relativestranger@feddit.nl 3 months ago
perhaps related to this?
health.com/vital-proteins-collagen-peptides-recal…
PostaL@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I’m sure they definitely didn’t think removing all those pesky “foreign materials” and next-gen metals from they products…
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 3 months 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 3 months 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.
buttnugget@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I honestly think it’s just a ridiculous ploy and that the product is fine. We need a proper regulatory system instead of this junk. I do think it’s unenforceable though.
MacStache@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Isn’t that an illegally forced agreement? I mean, the consumer already bought the product and is forced to enter an agreement after the fact? At least it feels like it would be illegal.
It’s the same with software, sure, but somehow I’ve been brainwashed into thinking it’s ok because it’s a digital product/I only agree to a license of said product.
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
If this is in the US you are 1 year away before companies can run Squid Games “illegally forced agreement” is a thing of the past
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
awesome, I hope the hunger games are only a few decades away
wieson@feddit.org 3 months ago
Def illégal in Germany. You can’t force an arbitration agreement.
Allero@lemmy.today 3 months 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.
lauha@lemmy.world 3 months ago
In most of Europe, no contract can take away legal rights
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Same in the USA, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
Allero@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Exactly
Strider@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This, and contract details that are shown after opening the packaging (as seen here covered by the lid) are void.
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
It doesn’t matter if you can’t afford the lawsuit.
dan@upvote.au 3 months ago
The legal system in Australia is better because if you win a lawsuit, the losing side usually has to pay your legal fees. As a result, there’s far fewer frivolous lawsuits.
Allero@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Then lack or presence thereof won’t help you, either.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 months 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 abs 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? 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 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.
Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 3 months 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 3 months 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.
Taleya@aussie.zone 3 months ago
All it does is prove to the purchaser that the fuckers don’t trust the basic safety and fitness for use of their product. Spectacular self own.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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…
buttnugget@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yep, I was just agreeing with someone else saying this is unenforceable. Just a ridiculous ploy and an attempt to make it precedent.
HikingVet@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 3 months 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 3 months 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.
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
There’s an easy solution: keep buying it, break the seal too get 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.
Tetragrade@leminal.space 3 months ago
By reading this comment, you agree to be bound as my eternal thrall, and wear a maid dress for my amusement.
RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world 3 months ago
So when do I get the dress?
Tetragrade@leminal.space 3 months ago
Post your P.O box and I’ll send it over.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Where can I put my case of beer, bed and computer?
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
wear a maid dress for my amusement.
when you see my hairy ass stuffed into a maid dress and claw your eyes out, it’ll be my amusement then. almost worth the dress…
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Usually is
hakunawazo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
sunbytes@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yeah they really slipped up by saying “and” using it, as opposed to “or”.
I’m going to gnaw into it like a little rat.
Part4@infosec.pub 3 months ago
[deleted]muhyb@programming.dev 3 months ago
Ackchyually, that makes it easier to sue them.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 3 months 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!”
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s concerning.
TheCleric@lemmy.org 3 months ago
I hope you returned that shit. That’s not mildly infuriating, that’s capitalism has officially run amok and needs to be taken out back and shot in the head
thrawn@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc
Tail11@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I didn’t know this—time to shop for a new collagen supplement.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Interesting how we’ve all become accustomed to the notion that “agreeing to arbitration” has just become “waving your consumer rights” and no one questions whether this should be legal to begin with.
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
no lawmaker is pushing to have that fixed.
…wikipedia.org/…/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_Rep…
Was reintroduced several times, Passed the house once. Republicans keep killing it in committee.
There’s also the Justice for workers Act specifically for work l employee force arbitration, more recently
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Because 98% of them are on the corporations’ side because they praxtice insider trading.
Serinus@lemmy.world 3 months ago
…wikipedia.org/…/Forced_Arbitration_Injustice_Rep…
Don’t be too lazy with your both sides bullshit.
antsu@lemmy.wtf 3 months ago
“By opening AND using this product (…)”
Have someone else open it for you, then consume the product yourself. Boom, no contract. Checkmate, lawyers!
Albbi@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
There should be an “protest buy” action to any the products that do this bullshit. A large group of people buy the products and then return them to the store for a refund. Especially for perishable goods, this would make them worthless. Which would make stocking such products a loss and force the vendors and manufacturers to cut the shit out.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 3 months ago
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
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Open it from the bottom.
captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 3 months ago
A good attorney could argue that drilling a hole in the side of the carton does not constitute opening the package.
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Now that it’s opened slightly, return it “immediately”
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
This isn’t mildly annoying, this is corporate hellscape.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
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.
expatriado@lemmy.world 3 months ago
all that jazz for a protein supplement?
Addition@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
That’s how you KNOW they’re putting sawdust and filler in their products.
davidgro@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Obvious solution is to not only return that one, but then go to a different brand of store, buy a bunch, then return them the next day. Repeat for each kind of store you can reach that sells them.
mvirts@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Lol too bad they only wrote it in English
zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 3 months 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.
naught101@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind
kautau@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Image
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
Contractual malicious compliance let’s go
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Yeah but just ro be clear, the terms are likely there for a reason and using this product probably has risks associated.
undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 3 months ago
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.
cornshark@lemmy.world 3 months ago
No, that’s xor
SimpleMachine@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Go one step further and have someone under 18 who cannot legally enter into a contract open it haha
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 3 months ago
I think having someone open if for you still counts. You’d have to already find one opened.
Taleya@aussie.zone 3 months ago
Leave it in a workplace fridge with a clear sticker saying “MIKES DO NOT TOUCH”