5 ms·
McDonalds is giving free French fries in return for waiving the right to sue
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bastawhiz 3y agoThe title is sensationalist. McDonald's has an arbitration clause for their app that you can't opt out of. And if you agree to it, the app lets you get free fries on Fridays. McDonald's is not giving out free fries when you would otherwise want to sue them or as a reward specifically for agreeing to arbitration.
- hnlmorg 3y agoThat was basically how I read the title.
- adolph 3y agoAre these the T&C referenced? https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/terms-and-conditions.html https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/terms-and-conditions.html I wonder how one can tell if one has agreed to a particular T&C at any point. Do companies have to maintain an api so I can query if I have agreed to a particular version of the T&C?
- thomasjudge 3y agoI just went to view them and I got the below text at the top of the page. I am agreeing to their T&C if I view their website? "Our Terms and Conditions have changed. Please take a moment to review the new McDonald’s Terms and Conditions by clicking on the link. These include a binding arbitration provision and waiver of your right to a trial in court, including your right to a jury trial, as well as updates to the arbitration and dispute resolution process. By continuing to use our website, you are indicating that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms and Conditions including the binding arbitration provision. You are also indicating that you understand that you are agreeing to a legally binding contract and intend to do so."
- bythreads 3y agoYes, all should - if you cannot with 100% surety tell what a user said yes to the contract is void. I've successfully litigated against 4 companies that did not. 90% of companies just have a Boolean in a db.
- bythreads 3y agoAlso all the bs with "if you use our site you automatically agree with our terms" is a lawsuit waiting to happen - the law is clear - the user must give clear and unequivocal consent - and it is also not ok to "agree with x, y and z by clicking here" that would require informed consent on x y and z seperately. (Edit: eu for context)
- rchaud 3y agoThat's the beauty of this tactic - you brought the legal action, so it's on you to prove that you didn't agree to the T&Cs.
- CydeWeys 3y agoIt's not sensationalist at all. Let's say you buy a child's meal through the app and your daughter ends up dying of E coli contracted from the meal. Because you used the app, you theoretically can't sue them, only use arbitration which as everyone knows tends to favor the large corporation paying them (and would never return a result of a large punitive fine like a jury might).
- ronsor 3y agoI'm not sure that's accurate. I don't think it's even possible to waive the right to sue for certain negligent actions.
- Terr_ 3y agoIANAL but in many jurisdictions it also comes down to ordinary negligence vs gross negligence. Basically the difference between ordinary mistakes versus "WTF were you thinking".
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI also am not a lawyer, but this will likely depend on the political leanings of the court: https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out... > A father brought a civil suit after his son had been sexually assaulted and stalked at boarding school by another student when he was 12. He argued that St. John’s was on notice of the perpetrator’s strange behavior towards the child, knew of other incidents of physical and sexual assaults on other students on campus and breached its duty to protect them. > The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and ordered all claims into arbitration. --- > Family members brought a wrongful death lawsuit after 90-year-old resident Charlotte Fischer died from an assault allegedly committed by a Colorow employee. The county coroner ruled her death a homicide. According to reports, a nurse’s assistant allegedly threw her against a wall and fractured her hip; he was charged with third-degree assault.[5] When Fischer entered the facility, her daughter filled out the admissions paperwork. Among the documents signed as part of the entry packet: an arbitration agreement compelling arbitration for any claim arising from or relating to Fischer’s relationship with the facility. > the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that only substantial compliance with the formatting requirements of the Act was needed and, as such, the case could be forced into arbitration.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- toddmorey 3y agoWell no, but is it ever that overt? Its still bad: It’s a ridiculously one-sided arbitration clause that most customers don’t fully understand & “agreement” is using the app. Maybe it’s worse because they are doing it preemptively without saying it aloud until it’s too late. This whole practice of “by breathing in our airspace you’ve agreed to arbitration” has to stop.
- bastawhiz 3y agoI'm not saying it's not bad, just that the title implies something which isn't true.
- croes 3y agoIt's even worse, it could be you lose you right to sue without even getting fries.
- zzzeek 3y agomy title, which I got from a mastodon post, is editorialized, but not sensationalized. it puts together two very critical components of what McDonalds is doing, which otherwise are both widely publicized but not directly connected. McDonalds is making it possible for people to get free food, at least one day of the week, for the rest of the year, by downloading an app and clicking a checkbox. And the purpose of clicking that checkbox is very prominently about waiving one's right to sue in court. if you go to McDonald's site right now without any pre-existing cookies at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/deals.html https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/deals.html , you get this banner: > Our Terms and Conditions have changed. Please take a moment to review the new McDonald’s Terms and Conditions by clicking on the link. These include a binding arbitration provision and waiver of your right to a trial in court, including your right to a jury trial, as well as updates to the arbitration and dispute resolution process. By continuing to use our website, you are indicating that you have reviewed and agree to these Terms and Conditions including the binding arbitration provision. You are also indicating that you understand that you are agreeing to a legally binding contract and intend to do so. They are very prominently noting the "right to trial in court" being waived; they refer to it three times in a five-sentence paragraph. This is on a fast food website where people are buying burgers and fries, is someone's "right to a jury trial" usually a thing in someone's mind when they go to a fast food chain to download an app and get fun prizes and stuff? It seems to be for McDonalds itself. Then they try to claim that clicking this banner is a legally binding contract, even though it has no idea what my name or address is; which is ludicrous for a website. But for the app, and by the time you're getting your free food, it's likely a little more well thought out. It seems extremely obvious that McDonalds is trying to get as many of their customers as possible to click this button and reduce the number of people with the right to sue them in court. The "free french fries" thing is unusually generous, which means clicking this button is worth a lot of money for them. None of this seems "sensationalist" to me. It seems perfectly clear and obvious once the two pieces are put together. Hence I put these pieces together in my headline and a lot of other people have gotten it now too.
- bastawhiz 3y agoThe fries and the arbitration are unconnected. The missing context that is the terms and conditions for using their app is important for understanding what's happening. You can't claim these are "two very critical components of what McDonalds is doing" and then leave out the critical detail that it's tied to the terms of service of their mobile app.
- lamontcg 3y agoThey're pushing the app and offering free fries for installing the app, while the app has a "poison pill" where you agree to give up your rights. The title is pretty fucking dead on. This shit desperately needs to just be made illegal across the board.
- bastawhiz 3y ago"installing the app" is a critical component to the story, which isn't mentioned in the headline. It's pure clickbait.
- pryelluw 3y ago(Anti) Freedom Fries.
- tangjurine 3y agoRestriction Fries
- nolist_policy 3y agoWaiver Fries.
- coding123 3y agoFlagging as irrelevant. Our industry does the same for something that should be sued out of existing. Facebook cough
- luluganeta 3y ago"Other people are doing immoral things, so shut up about yet another instance of someone doing immoral things" -- thanks for being part of the problem
- fotta 3y agoHow does this work if, say, I agreed to these terms, but then I walked into a McDonald’s and bought a scalding hot coffee without using the app? Would I still have grounds to sue if I got burnt since I never interacted with the app in this transaction but I previously agreed in the app? edit: the terms say (emphasis my own) > any claim or dispute […] you may have with McDonald’s or any other Members of the McDonald’s System arising from or related to the online services or these terms will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration So I suppose that this really only applies to lawsuits related to the use of the app and that any foodservice claims are still valid? IANAL. By this reading, I think this statement in the article is incorrect. > Essentially, the new terms state that, if a customer tries to sue over hot coffee, for example, they can't take their case to trial.
- analog31 3y ago[flagged]
- vasdae 3y ago>McDonald's customers are opting to delete the app No they aren't.
- dlhavema 3y agoI guess the underlying meaning of the sentence was "some small percentage of the app users are...."
- supertrope 3y agoI guess technically this is "consideration."
- secabeen 3y agoWe really need to ban arbitration in contracts of adhesion. Arbitration has a role to play in contracts where both parties genuinely agree to it, but in a take-it-or-leave-it situation, they should not be allowed to be imposed by the contract author.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TillE 3y agoMy sense is that there should just be a blanket ban on forced arbitration clauses. If a dispute arises between two companies, they can still agree to handle it through arbitration, but the right to sue should always exist until it is waived for a specific complaint.
- notatoad 3y agowe should ban "contracts" entirely where both parties don't genuinely agree to it. "terms and conditions" in apps are universally bullshit, there's no good reason they should exist at all.
- martinsnow 3y agoWould this hold up in court. I've heard those forms you sign that waive your rights before going to e.g. a haunted house don't mean anything if you get injured.
- remram 3y agoLike everything, probably yes but up to a point, as decided by a judge. For example if you order an item and they happen to be out of it and your party is ruined, you would almost certainly not be able to sue for damages in court. If your child ate the food and died, you would almost certainly be able to take it to court.
- ksherlock 3y agoGenerally gross negligence can't be disclaimed but otherwise, you agreed to it.
- pkaye 3y agoProbably as much as all the disclaimers on the mashed.com website that people normally don't read.
- a-dub 3y agofinding and summarizing nonstandard clauses in t&c for consumers seems like it could be a useful and good application of llm technology.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lnxg33k1 3y agoI think this is an ongoing issue with the current legal framework, there is no way for a lower level set of regulations to override higher level regulations, that should be it, a contract shouldn’t allow to give up upper level regulations
- lukeinator42 3y agoThere was an interesting post on HN a while back where someone initiated binding arbitration to get their account back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33462658. https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i-won https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-fought-the-paypal-and-i... It looks like MacDonalds will cover the arbitration costs of anything over $250, so it's probably a lot easier to take them to arbitration than suing them. That being said, arbitrators might side with large corporations more than a judge would. Alsom, IANAL but part 11 of the settling disputes section seems to say that it's still possible to do a class action lawsuit against them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gnarlouse 3y agoDo people actually use the McDonalds mobile app today?
- rchaud 3y agoPretty much every single person in a drive-thru window. App orders are prioritized over walk-ins. McDonalds' isn't a fast-food restaurant so much as a fulfillment center.
- IAmLiterallyAB 3y agoI don't eat McDonald's for my health, but back when I did they give out a lot of free food and big discounts. More than the other fast food chains who's apps I've tried. A bunch of my friends have the app.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sowbug 3y agoGood riddance. Even if we set aside the legal controversy, the app itself is a usability nightmare. The McDonald's corporation must believe that its app users are so hungry and desperate that they're willing to endure a nonstandard UI flow, endless offers to upsell and/or earn more points, and a strangely inverted menu hierarchy that resembles no order I've ever placed in my life. It's like grinding except for actual food.
- hnthrow9876 3y agoArbitration law in the US is insane. For example, someone who is suing the Church of Scientology was required by the courts to submit to arbitration run by the church: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ex-scientologist-accuses-church-of-lopsided-arbitration-hearing-in-kidnapping-lawsuit/ar-AA1iMJKG https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ex-scientologist-accuse... You would have thought that it would be limited to arbitrators who agree to some kind of due process. Oh, I see this has been flagged. Pity as the discussion of okay
- tim333 3y agoYay free fries! Fine by me. I feel no need for extensive legal protection to drink a coffee.
- DesiLurker 3y agoover time free fires go away but waiver stays & becomes standard practice checkbox with credit card transactions.