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 dont want to enter a contract when consuming your product..
Submitted 13 hours ago by Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/e9f377aa-3bdf-4949-954a-8784bbcf7542.jpeg
Comments
zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
naught101@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind
kautau@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 hours ago
Contractual malicious compliance let’s go
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 hours 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 13 hours 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 12 hours ago
No, that’s xor
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 8 hours ago
I think having someone open if for you still counts. You’d have to already find one opened.
Taleya@aussie.zone 5 hours ago
Leave it in a workplace fridge with a clear sticker saying “MIKES DO NOT TOUCH”
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 6 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.
wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and “foreign materials” contamination in their products.
Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works 12 hours 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 11 hours 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 11 hours ago
perhaps related to this?
health.com/vital-proteins-collagen-peptides-recal…
kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 6 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 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.
Taleya@aussie.zone 5 hours 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.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 6 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 5 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.
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 8 hours 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.
Allero@lemmy.today 10 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.
lauha@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
In most of Europe, no contract can take away legal rights
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Same in the USA, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
Allero@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
Exactly
JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
It doesn’t matter if you can’t afford the lawsuit.
dan@upvote.au 7 hours 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 8 hours ago
Then lack or presence thereof won’t help you, either.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.
Part4@infosec.pub 7 hours ago
Is there a bigger red flag than a message on it saying ‘if you break this seal you can’t sue us!’
muhyb@programming.dev 6 hours ago
Ackchyually, that makes it easier to sue them.
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 5 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!”
TheCleric@lemmy.org 9 hours 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
HikingVet@lemmy.ca 13 hours ago
Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 12 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 12 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.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 hours ago
This isn’t mildly annoying, this is corporate hellscape.
zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
Open it from the bottom.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
That’s concerning.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 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.
Albbi@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?
damnedfurry@lemmy.world 10 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.
Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It’s not legally binding.
LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 8 hours ago
Assuming you’re talking about the US, this is correct.
In the US you need to both actively acknowledge acceptance of the T&Cs, which simply opening a package typically doesn’t meet.
Also, and arguably more important, they need to include the entirety of the T&Cs for you to be able to review before accepting. This means on the packaging or presented at time of purchase, not requiring you to go elsewhere to find them or having to search them out.
Now even though it’s not legally enforceable, I’d say it’s still scummy and companies that do it should be avoided.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The same way millions of
fucking moronsregular 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.”JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
Those things aren’t even remotely similar to each other in terms of badness.
PaulBunyan@lemmy.world 10 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 9 hours ago
Just wait until you hear about holy water
Jarix@lemmy.world 9 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 excellent too many people
captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 10 hours ago
A good attorney could argue that drilling a hole in the side of the carton does not constitute opening the package.
herrvogel@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
The cap also says “by using”, so you have been outlawyered. You’ve been had. Your have forfeited all your rights. You are now a property of Big Protein. Better luck next time.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 8 hours ago
By opening AND using.
A good lawyer would surely argue that they didn’t open and use it.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world 12 hours 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 9 hours 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 10 hours ago
Because 98% of them are on the corporations’ side because they praxtice insider trading.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 13 hours 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
Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 13 hours ago
Now that it’s opened slightly, return it “immediately”
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours 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.
Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 43 minutes ago
Ever had any replies?
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
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.
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 10 hours ago
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).
expatriado@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
all that jazz for a protein supplement?
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
One full of toxic heavy metals.
CybranM@feddit.nu 9 hours ago
You even get some heavy metals included for free! What a bargain
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Supplement purity is hard, yo.
nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
Relevant lockpicking lawyer video
Tap for spoiler
His wife cuts it open from the bottom
davidgro@lemmy.world 10 hours 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.
Addition@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
That’s how you KNOW they’re putting sawdust and filler in their products.
Iamsqueegee@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
Make your own opening elsewhere on the package.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 5 hours ago
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.
danc4498@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Open it. Return it. Repeat.
Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Telling us the product so we could avoid it would be useful.
half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
Other people are saying it’s Vital Proteins, apparently.
Allero@lemmy.today 10 hours ago
Some Vital Proteins product, it seems.
blackbarn@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
“I went to the url but it was just a 404, honest. No terms, no conditions”
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
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.
Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 17 minutes ago
Name and shame. First off ,if in u.s. then most likely not legal and wouldn’t hold up in court. Secondly why would anyone ever agree to put something in their body with this kinda advertisement??
Name and Shane plz