5 ms·

The 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 fri

The 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 ago
That was basically how I read the title.
adolph 3y ago
Are 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    Also 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 ago
  That'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 ago
It'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 ago
  I'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 ago
    IANAL 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 ago
    I 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 ago
Well 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 ago
  I'm not saying it's not bad, just that the title implies something which isn't true.
croes 3y ago
It's even worse, it could be you lose you right to sue without even getting fries.
zzzeek 3y ago
my 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 ago
  The 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 ago
They'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.

hnlmorg 3y ago

That was basically how I read the title.

adolph 3y ago

Are 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 ago
I 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
  Also 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 ago
That'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 ago

It'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 ago
I'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 ago
  IANAL 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 ago
  I 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 ago

Well 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 ago
I'm not saying it's not bad, just that the title implies something which isn't true.

croes 3y ago

It's even worse, it could be you lose you right to sue without even getting fries.

zzzeek 3y ago

my 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 ago
The 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 ago

They'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.