Could “Liking” A Brand On Facebook Waive Your Legal Rights?

There is a very disturbing trend in the world of corporate terms and conditions. Consumers (and small merchants) are increasingly being forced by fine-print clauses into binding arbitration to resolve disputes with companies.

The very pro-business US Supreme Court not long ago ruled this was entirely legal.

What it means as a practical matter is that individuals give up their right to sue in court as well as the right to join together in class action litigation against corporations. The problem is that consumers, even if they’re permitted to sue individually, won’t because they don’t have the motivation or money.

While class action litigation has certainly been abused it also has enabled consumers to join together to balance their almost complete lack of legal power vs. large corporations. Class actions in one sense have provided a corporate oversight and legal enforcement mechanism that Congress has largely abdicated.

A recent decision in the Google “Wiretapping” litigation (over Gmail scanning) denied class action status to the would-be plaintiff class. That wasn’t a dismissal of the case in Google’s favor. But it amounts to the same thing because plaintiffs won’t proceed against the company individually.

Very soon every single corporate terms of service agreement in the US will include a binding arbitration clause.

The NY Times is also reporting today that companies are quietly amending privacy policies and online terms to expand the range of consumer actions that allegedly constitute “consent” to binding arbitration. This includes downloading a coupon or “Liking” a brand on Facebook:

General Mills, the maker of cereals like Cheerios and Chex as well as brands like Bisquick and Betty Crocker, has quietly added language to its website to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons, “join” it in online communities like Facebook, enter a company-sponsored sweepstakes or contest or interact with it in a variety of other ways.

The idea here is that any interaction with a company or its products (however slight) that confers a “benefit” upon the consumer will be treated as an acceptance of the company’s terms including the waiver of any and all legal rights against the company.

Consumers are held to these terms by courts. At one point in time, one-sided agreements that were imposed on individuals by more powerful parties (i.e., corporations) were called “contracts of adhesion” and not enforced by courts. In other words where there was no negotiation or evidence of consent to terms, courts wouldn’t allow the agreements.

That has long-since changed. Now consumers are held to have accepted fine-print and boilerplate terms regardless of whether they actually read, understood or affirmatively consented to them. A UC  Berkeley study found that only 1.4 percent of survey respondents said they actually read “end user license agreements.”

Another example of the impact of this “consent fiction” was on display in the recent dismissal of a potential class action against Facebook by minors who claimed that the company misappropriated their images when it used them in Sponsored Stories ads without affirmative consent. The judge ruled, as reported by Reuters, that “the minors gave their consent when they signed up for Facebook under the company’s “statement of rights and responsibilities” that governs usage of the site.

Companies and courts would counter my arguments by saying that corporations can’t be expected to solicit and obtain evidence of actual consent (beyond the perfunctory checkbox) because they operate at global scale and it would simply be impractical or impossible to do so. Consumers always have the choice not to use a product or service — right?

The very disturbing suggestion in the NY Times report is that corporations are increasingly going to try and use any online or real-world interaction with their services or products to force consumers into binding arbitration. Like a brand, download a coupon, visit a website, follow a company on Twitter — and give up your rights.

Related Topics: Channel: Social Media Marketing | Facebook | Facebook: Legal | Legal | Legal: General | Legal: Privacy | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Contributing Editor at Search Engine Land. He writes a personal blog Screenwerk, about SoLoMo issues and connecting the dots between online and offline. He also posts at Internet2Go, which is focused on the mobile Internet. Follow him @gsterling.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



Marketing Day:

Get the top marketing stories daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://rockthestatusquo.com/ Carrie Morgan

    I’m speechless. Brands want consumer trust and engagement across social platforms – yet violate that trust on every level with this kind of language being sneaked in? It’s absolutely horrible. And what if a consumer likes a Facebook page yet never went on the company website where the “contract” is? It seems one small step above fraudulent. I’m all for protecting yourself, but this is unconscionable.

  • gregsterling

    Yep. Totally agree.

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    The case law is not totally in agreement on these issues. There have been situations where courts have ruled against enforcement of TOS (Cf. https://web.archive.org/web/20070621115507/http://www.insidecounsel.com/section/technology/1409 ). It may come down to how good the consumer lawyer is when going up against a company that tries to hide behind obscure TOS privileges.

  • sleepd

    Playing devil’s advocate to a small degree, there is a point to the pronouncement that consumers can always choose not to use a service. In the example of MySpace, that can be disastrous for a company.

    There is also such a thing as hacking TOS. Increasingly, Facebook users do not use real names and do not use their own images when posting pictures. Thus, their accounts can not be matched to credit card buying habits that FB purchases, and their images cannot be exploited without compensation, since the images are not their own. Violation of TOS? Maybe. The only recourse FB has is to delete an account. So a new one gets created and the cycle continues. The same sword that makes it too complicated to solicit and obtain actual consent also makes it too difficult to follow up on each and every infraction down to an IP level. Boo hoo.
    And let’s not even start talking about deactivators and how they weaken the brand offering for advertisers.

    End of day, there is a line that gets crossed for consumers that makes a service unpalatable. It isn’t there yet for FB. And class actions won’t stave it off either.

  • Jeff Ferguson

    One thing I want to make sure is really, really clear here is how poorly the New York Times article is reporting this issue. What is actually happening in the T&Cs, etc. for General Mills, Facebook, etc. and some other sites IS NOT language that says, “you can’t sue us,” but instead what is called “forced arbitration.”

    Forced arbitration, which is something most business people should be used to dealing with in contracts with media publishers, etc. means that you waive your right to jumping directly to suing a person or company when an issue arises and instead use arbitration first in an attempt to settle the issue out of court. If this fails, you still retain the right to take a company to court, however, it just can’t be your first reaction.

    If you think about this, in this sue happy world we live in, this actually much more civil than the alternative.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Marketing Land on Twitter @marketingland Like Marketing Land on Facebook Follow Marketing Land on Google+ Subscribe to Our Feed! Join our LinkedIn Group Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Marketing News!

Marketing Day is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!