WASHINGTON, D.C. April 22 (DPI) – General Mills quietly tried to force its customers who interact with it online – such as “liking” Cheerios on Facebook or applying for electronic coupons – to submit to binding arbitration in disputes.
But after The New York Times reported the development last week, people went bananas, including posting less-than-cheery rants on the Cheerios Facebook page. And in a matter of hours the company backed off, repeatedly apologizing on social media.
It was a small victory for the trial bar: Corporations for years have been pushing customers to consent to arbitration, which in effect surrenders their right to a traditional lawsuit or be a part of class-action litigation. And General Mills, though it continues to have an arbitration policy for subscribers of newsletters and hard-copy interaction, says it has not enforced its arbitration clause and has no plans to.
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html
Both articles did not include comment boards, suggesting that editors were concerned about angry screeds from both sides of the issue, as well as from “issue-pumpers” paid to promote a point of view anonymously online.
Still, the report by The New York Times underscored the value of old-style newsroom journalism in the digital age: The story – even if it was fed to The Times by a trial lawyer, as it likely was – brought to light an obscure subject that readers apparently care about, triggering a strong and immediate reaction, as well as an immediate change in policy.
It also underscores the social value of the authoritative, relatively objective and public-oriented voice, which is what the newspaper front page was for generations.
It’s not clear, though, that all the posters on the Cheerios Facebook page will indeed stop buying Cheerios as they claim – after all, the internet is ladened with anonymous and semi-anonymous hate mail, which is usually the end of it.
But the comments on Cheerios page highlighted the risks of online relationships – which are immediate and searing almost by definition – especially for big companies.
On the “Recent Posts By Others” page on www.facebook.com/Cheerios, several PR people dropped a form message into many reader replies:
Thank you for your feedback. We’ve listened and we have changed our legal terms back. Please read more on our blog post: http://bit.ly/1ms92k0
Thank you,
Rosemary
One or two readers were sympathetic, but not many:
People need to realize that you guys are protecting your business from frivolity in consumers. I understand what you were trying to do, and as a PR professional also appreciate how you handled it and listened to your consumers. Not many businesses or organizations will do that, and many, even in this digital age, still do not respond to social media.
The American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, released its own announcement:
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/23261.htm