General Mills requires coupon users to give up right to sue

General Mills must have some pretty valuable digital coupons. In its newly updated privacy and legal policy, the Cheerios manufacturer requires individuals who want to download offers to agree not to sue the company. The same rules apply for any person going on any General Mills-owned website or for participants in sweepstakes or contests created by the company.
Those who want the coupons agree to go through an arbitration process should they have a problem with the company’s products. By engaging in arbitration, the company avoids dealing with costly class action lawsuits, minimizing monetary damages and public relations issues (case related documents are not made public) even in cases when it loses.
General Mills has had some costly legal run-ins of late. The company settled a class action suit for $8.5 million last year after it was accused of making false claims about the health benefits associated with its Yoplait Yo-Plus Yogurt. In 2012, it agreed to remove a picture of strawberries from its Strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups packaging after it was discovered the product didn’t contain the fruit as an ingredient.
Last month, a judge ruled against General Mills when the company sought to have a suit, accusing the company of false advertising, dismissed. In this most recent case, General Mills is accused of labeling its Nature Valley products as "100% Natural" when they contain genetically modified organisms and processed ingredients.
The New York Times, which initially broke the story, pointed out that by signing the agreement, even parents of children with peanut allergies would be unable to sue the company if a packaging mistake was made and their kids ate a food that contained trace amounts.
- When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue – The New York Times (tiered sub.)
- Updates to privacy policy and legal terms – General Mills
- General Mills Says If You ‘Like’ It On Facebook, You Can Never Sue The Company – Business Insider
- General Mills: If You Clip This Coupon, You Can’t Sue Us! – The Atlantic
Will General Mills’ new legal policy affect consumers’ perceptions of the company and its business? Do you expect this type of policy to become commonplace with other CPG companies?
Join the Discussion!
16 Comments on "General Mills requires coupon users to give up right to sue"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If they wanted to avoid public relations issues, this was probably not the way to do it. It would be interesting to see if the disclaimer stands up in court.
Really? I have mostly thought of General Mills as a fine, upstanding company, and very buttoned up when I visited their offices on numerous occasions. But this just doesn’t seem to be the right thing to do. They must know that 99% of us never read these legal and privacy policy updates (or there wouldn’t be time left to do anything else). So, it pretty much says to the consumer, “Hey, we’re General Mills and you’re not!” Which, IMO, is not a great thing to do in this age of ubiquitous social media.
I know this isn’t PC…but is America becoming an increasingly sad, fearful and angry place? Now you can’t even enjoy Cheerios without it being a litigious experience; so much for the “cheer” part. “Cheerios” for goodness sakes! In education, politics, public safety, environment, industry, etc. etc. we seem to be driven by anger, fear, ego, greed, or whatever other bullet we can shoot into our own foot.
There are such possibilities in this country and we are wasting them through our own foolishness. If we would ever align all our energies and focus them on our highest possibilities we’d be unassailable.
Happy Easter all.
General Mills, like most companies, is trying to limit its legal and therefore financial exposure. Whether or not their latest move achieves that goal is yet to be seen. Unless it fails immediate challenge in the courts, I expect that other companies’ lawyers are pouring through the General Mills legal language and devising ways to copy it. Trial lawyers are probably doing the same, looking for ways to challenge and/or pierce this shield.
Part of the problem is that digital and print coupons are increasingly seen as the same thing, in the eyes of customers. Younger consumers who are not newspaper readers are less likely to be “coupon clippers” and more likely to respond to online or mobile offers as time goes by. In that context, how does General Mills differentiate legally between a print coupon user with a product liability claim, and somebody using a digital coupon? Either way, I agree with my fellow panelists that this is not a well-considered PR policy, outside of the legal firewall that the attorneys are trying to create.
This is almost too bizarre to understand. I can imagine the management meeting at General Mills…the chair of the meeting opens with the following statement, “How can we continue to lie to our customers without getting sued?”
Obviously, telling the truth is not an alternative.
First of all, let’s add a few facts. Customers have the right to “opt out” of the new policy, essentially preserving their right to sue. It isn’t easy to find, but it’s possible.
Now, the company has been lambasted in the press for attempting to put itself above the law. How could this be good for “consumers’ perceptions of the company and its business.”?
I think other companies would love to adopt this policy (who wouldn’t want to make it hard to sue them?), but I think the blowback would just be too much.
This move makes me think that you should be more scrutinizing of General Mills’ products before buying them. I doubt that is the result they were going for.
All of a sudden GM decides to “bullet proof” itself. I wonder why they don’t realize the bad press this can create. But wait, they are now “bullet proof.”
General Mills clearly did not consider the backlash in the media. Look at the reaction on RetailWire, plus the bad image of GM in the consumer press. It’s a black eye for an otherwise smart marketer.
Am I the only one that thinks I understand why General Mills would adopt this position? Nikki asked: “is the company I do business with genuine and interested in taking care of me? Or are they in it for themselves?” What do you ALL think being in business is about? Many of the respondents are consultants with a different set of viewpoints (and, obviously high morals) than someone who has real experience in a B2C business. I’m not saying a company should lie about their products, and shouldn’t treat their customers right. Focus on what General Mills gets right 99% of the time, and not on the percentage that makes good fodder for righteousness. The answer: I hope not for part one, and yes, for part two. PS: My comments do not necessarily represent those of my wonderful company.
On the one hand, I despise the lawsuit-happy environment in the US and think for most disputes, arbitration is a reasonable alternative. However, the fact that large corporations like General Mills clearly do not focus on the consumer but rather shareholders is disturbing, but not surprising. This attitude drives savvy consumers to walk away from the conglomerates in increasing numbers and support smaller, truly consumer-centric brands. The battle continues…I think the consumer will win in the end. General Mills and all of your brethren: watch out.