ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Monday, April 21, 2014

Blog 1, General Mills 0

On Thursday, we posted about General Mills' new arbitration policy.  

On Friday, the blog was disabled by a series of Denial of Service attacks.



Still, on Saturday, the New York Times reported that General Mills has retracted its new arbitration policy.  In short, we win.  A company spokesman was quoted in the Times saying, “Because our terms and intentions were widely misunderstood, causing concerns among our consumers, we’ve decided to change them back to what they were . . . .”  

In a blog post, General Mills strikes a slightly different tone  The company still claims that its terms were "misread."  The company's lawyers state: 

At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood. 

I have to admit that I am one of the parties who "misunderstood" their terms as having been broadly drafted so as to be reasonably construable to cover just about any interaction with General Mills, its websites and its products.  So I (and everyone else who looked at the policy) may have been mistaken in its meaning.  Still, in short, we win.

In any case, the company acknowledges that its new policies went over like a lead balloon.  General Mills claims to have listened to the firestorm of criticism and therefore apologizes.  It's a real apology too -- none of this "I'm sorry if you were upset by your misunderstanding of our intent" or "I'm sorry if I unintentionally hurt anyone in any way."  The company states that it is sorry that it "even went down this path."  

HoffmanHowever, having issued the apology, the company can't quite let it go.  The blog post points out that arbitration clauses are widespread and simply provide a cost-effective means of resolving legal claims.  

As Bob Sullivan points out," if arbitration is so great, why not make it voluntary instead of mandatory?"  I suspect that the answer has a lot to do with the class action waivers that now routinely accompany binding arbitration clauses.

UPDATE: A very insightful blog post on Concurring Opinions from Temple's Dave Hoffman (pictured).

In the News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blog 1, General Mills 0:


Memo to Fortune 500 GC's: Don't mess with a law prof with access to a blog!

Posted by: Otto stockmeyer | Apr 22, 2014 7:17:36 AM

Post a comment

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.