General Mills has reversed its arbitration policy in regards to social media and other online interactions with the company.
Last week we reported that General Mills had altered its legal policy to demand arbitration with any customers who visited one of their brands websites, or even interacted with the company’s brands on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms. The change in policy read, “use of any of our sites or services, or participation in any other General Mills offering, means that you are agreeing to these Legal Terms.”
In reversing that decision Kirstie Foster, a representative for General Mills, wrote on the General Mills blog, “We rarely have disputes with consumers – and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled. Many companies do the same, and we felt it would be helpful. But consumers didn’t like it.”
Before reversing its decision, the company originally wrote on The New York Times, that the policy had been “grossly mischaracterized” by media organizations and bloggers.
In following up on the change in policy and its reversal, Foster wrote on Saturday: “On behalf of our company and our brands, we would also like to apologize. We’re sorry we even started down this path. And we do hope you’ll accept our apology.”
Here are just a few of the actions that led to General Mills reversing direction over its far reaching arbitration policy:
Does buying a box of cereal strip your right to sue the cereal company? General Mills claims it does. #overreach https://t.co/Bf7HYGvjkA
— Kate Mereand (@KateMereand) April 20, 2014
Can I sue General Mills if I dislike them? https://t.co/TOiMW8m3Uy
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) April 19, 2014
I'm calling BS on General Mills on this, but their lawyers can't stop consumers from saying what's on their minds. // https://t.co/tAbaPuOYGK
— rickatshift (@rickatshift) April 17, 2014
0 Comments