1081
submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 418 points 6 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 269 points 6 days ago

Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind

[-] [email protected] 81 points 6 days ago

Contractual malicious compliance let's go

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 109 points 6 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 53 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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

[-] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

Squid Game at least honor the votes to end the game, IRL they'll just cancel elections lmfao.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

Def illégal in Germany. You can't force an arbitration agreement.

[-] [email protected] 248 points 6 days ago

This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and "foreign materials" contamination in their products.

[-] [email protected] 54 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 151 points 6 days ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 6 days ago

Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’

that's just cheating

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 37 points 5 days ago

"By opening AND using this product (...)"

Have someone else open it for you, then consume the product yourself. Boom, no contract. Checkmate, lawyers!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 130 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 72 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

By reading this comment, you agree to be bound as my eternal thrall, and wear a maid dress for my amusement.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 5 days ago

Ugh damn it man. okay pm me your address

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 21 points 6 days ago

So when do I get the dress?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 40 points 5 days ago

Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 94 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 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.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 6 days 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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 20 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 108 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] [email protected] 75 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There's an easy solution: keep buying it, break the seal to get to 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.

[-] [email protected] 92 points 6 days ago

Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.

[-] [email protected] 54 points 6 days 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…

[-] [email protected] 32 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 73 points 6 days ago

Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago

So when my underage child opens this what's the plan? Clearly theyre not old enough to enter into an "legally" binding agreement, right?

[-] [email protected] 53 points 6 days ago

Is there a bigger red flag than a message on it saying 'if you break this seal you can't sue us!'

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 30 points 6 days 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.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 53 points 6 days 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

[-] [email protected] 55 points 6 days ago

That's concerning.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 6 days ago

Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?

[-] [email protected] 25 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 38 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Interesting how we've all become accustomed to the notion that "agreeing to arbitration" has just become "waving your consumer rights" and no lawmaker is pushing to have that fixed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 27 points 6 days ago

Open it from the bottom.

[-] [email protected] 26 points 6 days ago

This isn't mildly annoying, this is corporate hellscape.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 28 points 6 days ago

A good attorney could argue that drilling a hole in the side of the carton does not constitute opening the package.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 29 points 6 days 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

[-] [email protected] 28 points 6 days ago

Now that it's opened slightly, return it "immediately"

[-] [email protected] 25 points 6 days 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
1081 points (99.2% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41149 readers
1198 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS