You Can’t Sue Me Now

General Mills wants to turn Facebook likes into a legal agreement. The company has created a new privacy policy which basically states that anyone who has received “any” benefit from General Mills gives up their right to sue the company.  Even if the product in some way harms them or makes them ill.  General Mills has gone so far as to include giving them a “like” on their Facebook page as a benefit to the consumer.  The concept of benefits also extends to downloading coupons, signing up for contests, or any other form of interaction.  A consumers only recourse if they have an issue with the company will be either a negotiation process with the company or a binding arbitration, with the arbitration team no doubt chosen by General Mills.

Why was this policy enacted?  It appears to stem from an incident where two moms sued the company for deceptive marketing over their use of the term “natural” on a product which contained high fructose corn syrup and genetically modified ingredients.  Last month it came before a judge who refused to dismiss the case so it will be moving forward.

This is not the first time General Mills has been sued for deceptive practices.  In 2012 it was sued for using the word “strawberry” on a fruit roll-up product that contained no strawberries.  The case was settled and General Mills agreed to stop using that word on the package.

So why is there a picture of a Larabar at the top of this post?  Because guess who owns that brand?  In the “Who Owns Your Food” section of The Pantry Principle I share a graphic which highlights just how confusing and overwhelming the web of food has become in this country.  While I'm not sure (because I'm not a lawyer) if this position is defensible, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's stupid.  If you don't want people to get upset about what you do to your food, don't do that.  If you claim ingredients which aren't in there, people have a right to be upset.  If you use deceptive marketing you should not be allowed to get away with it simply to make a buck.  Why defend your position to do the wrong thing?  That makes no sense to me.

And a startling thought that occurs to me, I  wonder if they will extend this legal stance to other brands where the consumer may not be aware of ownership.  So I'm highlighting the brands that I'm aware of which are owned by General Mills below.  Many of them may surprise you.

• Cascadian Farms Organic
• Food Should Taste Good (chips/snack product)
• Larabar
• Muir Glen tomato products
• Liberte yogurt
• Häagen-Dazs
• Nature Valley

• And if you're interested…the list of mainstream Big G products is HUGE.  If you want to see all of them (and there are hundreds) you can look on their website http://www.generalmills.com/Brands

Want to let General Mills know how you feel about this issue? Sign this petition

And then buy a copy of The Pantry Principle: how to read the label and understand what's really in your food.

Update:  After a furious backlash from consumers and an overwhelmingly negative media focus General Mills has reversed itself on this decision.  Their blog post (entitled “We've listened – and we're changing our legal terms back”) claims that “Those terms – and our intentions – were widely misread.”  They also offered an apology.

Whether their lawyers had a specific purpose in mind or if indeed the intent was misunderstood, it is a given that companies are going to spin things their way every change they get.  The most important thing to remember, as far as I'm concerned, is that this once again shows the effect a highly motivated and vocal public can have on corporate policy.  They won't change and do better unless they believe they have to.

Let's not forget one of my favorite quotes by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” 

photo: Bradley Stemke