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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
perhaps related to this?
health.com/vital-proteins-collagen-peptides-recal…
PostaL@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
awesome, I hope the hunger games are only a few decades away
wieson@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Def illégal in Germany. You can’t force an arbitration agreement.
Allero@lemmy.today 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
In most of Europe, no contract can take away legal rights
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Same in the USA, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
Allero@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Exactly
Strider@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
This, and contract details that are shown after opening the packaging (as seen here covered by the lid) are void.
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
It doesn’t matter if you can’t afford the lawsuit.
dan@upvote.au 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Then lack or presence thereof won’t help you, either.
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
So when do I get the dress?
Tetragrade@leminal.space 5 weeks ago
Post your P.O box and I’ll send it over.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
Where can I put my case of beer, bed and computer?
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 5 weeks ago
Usually is
hakunawazo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
sunbytes@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
[deleted]muhyb@programming.dev 5 weeks ago
Ackchyually, that makes it easier to sue them.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
That’s concerning.
TheCleric@lemmy.org 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc
Tail11@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I didn’t know this—time to shop for a new collagen supplement.
antsu@lemmy.wtf 5 weeks ago
“By opening AND using this product (…)”
Have someone else open it for you, then consume the product yourself. Boom, no contract. Checkmate, lawyers!
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
hand it to a baby. it’s like the cursed weapon loophole.
bold_atlas@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
And loose your right to claim the Amazon $5 gift card? You’ll fold.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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
Albbi@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Open it from the bottom.
captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Now that it’s opened slightly, return it “immediately”
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
This isn’t mildly annoying, this is corporate hellscape.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
all that jazz for a protein supplement?
Addition@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
That’s how you KNOW they’re putting sawdust and filler in their products.
nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Relevant lockpicking lawyer video
Tap for spoiler
His wife cuts it open from the bottom
davidgro@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Lol too bad they only wrote it in English
zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind
kautau@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Image
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 weeks ago
Contractual malicious compliance let’s go
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
No, that’s xor
SimpleMachine@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
Go one step further and have someone under 18 who cannot legally enter into a contract open it haha
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 5 weeks ago
I think having someone open if for you still counts. You’d have to already find one opened.
Taleya@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
Leave it in a workplace fridge with a clear sticker saying “MIKES DO NOT TOUCH”