“By opening AND using this product (…)”
Have someone else open it for you, then consume the product yourself. Boom, no contract. Checkmate, lawyers!
So when my underage child opens this what’s the plan? Clearly theyre not old enough to enter into an “legally” binding agreement, right?
Lol too bad they only wrote it in English
This is a real thing?
Lg tried it on refrigerators, even though refrigerators are not delivered in boxes.So the customer never receives them. The delayed or denied every warranty claim on their stupid 2 stage refrigerant pump, then said since the customer opened the box with the terms agreement that they couldn’t sue. It took more than a year to resolve just that there could be a class action lawsuit against LG.
I’m gonna need some good news soon. This dystopia just keeps getting worse and worse.
The good news is that these things pass, buddy. All things pass, and it’s almost over really. This economy, this president, they won’t last forever. This country, this current set of land masses, this current set of planets. It’s all gonna just…pass. Gonna be just one drop in a lake of space and an ocean of time. Gonna be pressed into a microscopic crease in the fabric of a spacetime already contorted by titanic folds of incomprehensible number and arrangement. Until it can hardly be said to have happened at all.
hilarious. I think they’re doing you a favor so you don’t have to buy this product ever again
Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc
I didn’t know this—time to shop for a new collagen supplement.
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.
Def illégal in Germany. You can’t force an arbitration agreement.
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
awesome, I hope the hunger games are only a few decades away
Squid Game at least honor the votes to end the game, IRL they’ll just cancel elections lmfao.
Well they do hide their own guy amongst the players who can influence the vote
By reading this comment, you agree to be bound as my eternal thrall, and wear a maid dress for my amusement.
Ugh damn it man. okay pm me your address
im good
I’m sorry, the contract has already been signed.
everyone’s all for enthralling randos on the internet, but as soon as they ask A/S/L suddenly its gone to far
So when do I get the dress?
Post a PO box and I’ll send it over.
Jokes on you I’m into that shit
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.
Be careful, if you do a “protest buy”, they may legally be able to not accept the return since you already knew about the contract. So you know, either don’t do it or at least don’t post on social media about it.
Yeah you’d want to legally verify that and organize en masse for this to have any impact.
Well, the top cap apparently needs to be torn off to read the sentence, lowering the shelf appeal of the product even though there are other tamper-evident seals present.
Time to use the box cutter and open it from the bottom.
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.
They’re bringing back Prima Nocta.
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.
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.
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.
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 and 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? Farsighted? 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 open when it shipped to you 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. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren’t the case.
Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.
It actually does have legal precident. You know how you can’t read or accept the EULA for software until after you purchase it?
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.
If they can change their EULA at any time without consent for something you already purchased that should enable the option for a full refund if declined.
Accept the new license or refund.
Agreed
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…
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.
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
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.
Yeah, feels like a trick.
Yep, I was just agreeing with someone else saying this is unenforceable. Just a ridiculous ploy and an attempt to make it precedent.
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.
Go one step further and have someone under 18 who cannot legally enter into a contract open it haha
Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind
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” the terms would only apply if you either open it or use it.
No, that’s xor
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”
This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and “foreign materials” contamination in their products.
I’m sure they definitely didn’t think removing all those pesky “foreign materials” and next-gen metals from they 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.
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/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.
prop 65 is a useless law that goes against known science about hazard limits, causing manufacturers to have to label nearly everything with warnings. if a company is violating that law, it usually doesn’t mean much.
Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’
that’s just cheating
In the ’20s tho? Not rly
Seems like a labelling issue due to california laws rather than legitimate ingredient flaws with toxic or heavy metals.
Honestly you should assume all supplements are toxic and full of heavy metals, because that shit is virtually unregulated.
To some degree I totally agree. If you don’t find 3rd party lab verified then I’d be skeptical. Not just any 3rd party. It has to be from legitimate Orgs and trusted vendors.
I’m unsure how much people look at labels now days, unless you have a health issue requiring it. The levels of say vitamins manufacturers add to even like biotin or other vitamins/supplements. Thousands and sometimes 10s of thousands more than a daily dose your body can consume. Which means your kidneys or liver have to process that out. Things are toxic in high doses.
Its all about balance. A lot of these supplements are way way out of balance. It’s a shame, businesses or people can’t be reputable.
perhaps related to this?
https://www.health.com/vital-proteins-collagen-peptides-recall-2023-7510523
