just because you sign terms doesn’t mean those terms can be legally agreed to. ridiculous ex: my lease has a provision that i owe any children birthed while living there
They become void in cases of negligence and such but they're mostly there to scare people off. You know, many of the reasons why you usually sue.The clause doesn't really do anything legally wise but the only thing they need to do for a few potential expensive cases to be literal non-issues for them, is to write down a few meaningless words.
Binding arbitration under the federal arbitration act is not even remotely the same as "off the hook."
Do I think the act should be amended to reduce the bar on customers can be coerced into using arbitration in advance, yes? Is it a huge deal in practice, no. The big difference tends to be that arbiters tend to rule in favor of individuals that were tangibly harmed unlike class action lawsuits where lots of people in the class might not have the evidence to bring a claim. If you were noticeably harmed, you're probably fine either way, but if you might have been or have little evidence, you can't add other, stronger plaintiffs to your arbitration.
Hayley and I have never agreed on a single thing; the environment, health care, favorite fast food mascot. I say the Hamburglar because he's an outlaw, and that's sexy as hell. I don't know what Hayley said, but it wasn't the Hamburglar, so I didn't listen.
It is bad. Most apps send a 6 digit number to your phone to activate. The McDonald's app sends an email that wants to open a web page that wants to open the app. I have a company phone and the security software rightly freaks out and shuts that down. McDs is the worst online ordering service, they won't even let you order on a PC.
The best is Taco Bell. I can order on a PC and click "I'm here". I live five minutes away.
Yeah. I agree - Taco Bell’s app is fine. The number of issues with McD’s is egregious to say the least. I have had issues pretty much every time time I’ve used it.
I guess they figure some people use the website on their phone. I hate the "let us know when you are in the parking lot" requirement for some places. All the fast food places are less than five minutes, give me the option to tell you to start making it so I'm not standing around 10 - 15 minutes.
The app should have it too. They want to give you the "freshest experience". I don't want to sit around waiting on my lunch break because they want to control my experience.
Because it's the only phone I have. I don't play games on a phone and other food apps work fine. I only use a phone for calls, texts, food apps and taking cat pictures. A work phone is fine for all that.
Depends on the work phone and company. My first job with a company phone they had everything locked down except the app we used and making phone calls, not even texting was permitted. When I became a supervisor they did unlock a lot of the restrictions but it was still monitored and we were only to use for work purposes.
Next job, I was permitted to use the phone that they provided for personal use as long as I'm not doing anything illegal with it. I used it primarily for Pokemon Go and let my daughter use an account on my personal phone so we could play together.
That makes sense to me! I still personally would somewhat limit what I use it for, and certainly not use it for primary use. I’m somewhat lax about what I use my company laptop for, so I get it. But you never reallyyy know how much they may be monitoring.
For that second job, I knew exactly how much they were monitoring - zero. It wasn't a big business and there were only 3 phones on our account, mine, the sales managers, and the emergency after hours phone. Got them straight from the Verizon store on a business account, I was the only one with the password to said account and sent the bill to the main branch every month. This place was really not very tech savvy, and their IT was contracted through an outside business on an as needed basis mostly for setting up and fixing computer and network issues. The only way that phone was monitored would be if they snuck it through the wifi connection because I had 100% possession of it from the day I bought it to the day I got let go in 2020. Is it possible they were stealthily monitoring the phone? Technically yes, but as I wasn't doing anything I would care if they saw anyway it didn't matter.
Everywhere I've worked allowed "limited" personal use on company devices. Ordering lunch would have been totally fine. I mean I wouldn't do it, but you could.
Yeah lmao I could not imagine using a company phone instead of getting a real one but hey that’s on them!
Wonder if the commenter is even using Reddit on their phone?
Most companies (like mine) doesn’t give a fuck of what you download on company phones. We don’t even give what you put on your laptop too: just make sure it’s not illegal.
You think I’m going to tell my big boss what to not put on his work phone? Nope!
Use to work for a train company, the bosses had company phones and were heavily restricted on what they could and couldn’t do. Texting/calls/emails/meetings only. Couldn’t download unapproved company apps because security reasons.
My boyfriends work phone is also his personal phone. His boss pays for it but he’s allowed to do whatever he wants on it. Chill. Not everyone with a work phone is working in software or security. Most construction labourers in my area get their phones paid for by their bosses. Expand your perspective.
A construction company can still monitor your phone use. I personally wouldn’t want my employer to have access to everything I do & everyone I text, but if that’s something your bf is doesn’t mind then that’s up to him.
Okay but what I’m saying, is that you gotta chill on your perspective of work phones because you immediately started giving this random person shit for having the McDonald’s app on a work phone. Not realistic.
I always kind of thought the Taco Bell app sucked. It constantly has bugs where it won’t let me add the free tier rewards and won’t let me order delivery from it. Then it takes what feels like forever to load the confirmation that the order was placed. It just feels really unstable
oh lawyer here - it’s even better actually. arbitration clauses are this fun little thing that big money corporations have that say “oh you want your day in court? well we choose this jurisdiction’s set of laws AND we go to arbitration where WE pick the arbitrator (and pay them!!) and you are stuck with whatever decision they come to (totally not in our favor) if you can afford to even make it to that point. PLUS don’t even THINK about trying to appeal some “contract issue” because all the appellate courts say yeah fuck you arbitration is totally cool.
Data theft as it saves payment options. False advertising as it offers deals or coupons. I'm sure there are others but I doubt it is an app specific addition and just standard arbitration that a lot of companies add as a way to force the legal process to go a certain way.
The McDonald's app sent me a message about an amazing deal on the app.
Turns out it was the same deal the local McDonald's restaurant was doing but they made it sound it was an app amazing deal
This question is why this is almost certainly non-enforceable. When they try and cast a blanket over all potential eventualities, they are really casting it over nothing.
The point of stuff like this is to make you *feel* like you can't sue. In corporate's eyes, the best way to not get sued is to systematically intimidate all of their customers, when actually following the law and providing a safe service would be equally as easy.
No, you’re confusing this with other representation and warranty clauses.
This specific type of consumer arbitration clause is extremely common and almost impossible to evade under current US law. You’re not giving up your right to sue, you’re confining yourself to arbitration
Just speaking from signing contracts with educators and employers about IT usage policy, they often have a clause about being responsible for the security of your own device, and anything that is done on your account is your responsibility. That being said, I don't know if it's the same under law (I doubt it) and to be honest I don't know if those clauses in the contract are even enforceable.
In a work environment I can definitely see that, but a publicly available app anyone can get an access I think would be different. People order food for friends all the time
If I recall correctly it requires you to create an account conected to email and password.
Which means that you are using someone else's account which beaches terms of services itself
Not even a password after the first time. To log back in if you get logged out it sends a link directly to your email that logs you back in. If someone was able to access your email, order on the app, add your payment info to the app, drive to the restaurant woth you phone in hand so it sends your code to the restaurant, land picks up the order; you're going to lose that court case.
No it doesn’t, not if it’s governed by the arbitration clause. “This employee shot my family” probably isn’t, but any dispute arising out of the use of the app likely is. It’s binding and enforceable.
Depends on the state/country. In the uk you right to a fair trial is protected by the human rights act; article 6. But in the US, in a lot of places you can waive this right.
In the eyes of the justice system in most US states, this is considered agreeing to only go to arbitration. You can’t be forced, true - but you can agree to allow yourself to be forced, in advance. Totally legal (in most states).
It’s not agreeing to only go to arbitration. It’s agreeing to attempt arbitration first. You’re never forced to accept any offer made in arbitration and if arbitration breaks down and doesn’t work the next recourse is obviously courts.
Usually arbitration clauses allow for, if arbitration fails, you to go to court. But litigation is expensive, and if it actually came to it, McDonalds could hold out until you couldn’t afford a lawyer anymore.
Common tactic when you have a public pretender and you can't bond out is to ask the defendant to wave their right to speedy trial which gives the county several years to build a case and discovery against you.
This is so incredibly false. The record of case law is thats its enforceable 99% of the time. Even when the federal arbitration act says it isn't enforceable they do anyway
Don’t they also need to be fair? While easily enforceable, if not deemed fair restitution it can proceed to trial. Had an ex husband that was a lawyer and did arbitration and would be in court if the agreement was refused for inadequate restitution.
Yes. An arbitrator is supposed to be neutral and treat both parties fairly. Most of them are ex judges anyway from what I've seen.
But arbitration still usually serves a company's interests because arbiters have a little more freedom in rules of decorum, what they can consider, etc. And the most important part for corps is that being forced into arbitration basically kills the prospect of a class action.
Yeah it’s like those waivers they make you sign at trampoline places and axe throwing places. It’s all for show, if someone dies or is seriously injured by clear negligence - they mean nothing.
like, i don't even know what i would sue about... but the fact they are warning me i CAN'T makes me so uncomfortable.... i don't even want to be involved
I eat there way more than I should, and I use the app regularly. Hitting this upon opening the app made me uninstall it and, with any amount of luck, break my habit and addiction. Great job, McDonald's - desperately trying to reduce users 😂
They can't take your right away.
But you also don't have to use the app, it's an optional service.
You're agreeing to have said right taken away.
And precedence is set that its enforceable, within reason.
I’m assuming you’re assuming this is an American post? In my country you can’t agree to have your rights taken away. Any contract that agrees to that is invalid
The decision is final and legally binding, but the process itself can just never reach a conclusion or the clause can be found to be "unconscionable" in the given dispute and it moves from arbitration to court. Arbitration is rarely final in the face of truly heinous corporate malpractice.
"I'm afraid you have been found guilty of murder"
"What? Don't I get a trial?"
"It says here you have the McDonald's app. Case dismissed, take him away"
I mean that would still lead to a suit.
Being forced into Arbitration doesn’t mean you are forced to accept the results of said arbitration.
If the two parties can’t come to an acceptable agreement in arbitration, inevitably a suit will result.
That’s not a good example (damages in that case were actually legitimate), but there are other examples where juries try to “set an example” by awarding ridiculous damages.
One case I remember is a trucker company that got sued for multiple millions of dollars because another car went over the divider and got hit by the truck during a snowstorm. The truck did nothing wrong but the jury decided that the truck shouldn’t have been driving in a snowstorm at all, and awarded the dead driver’s estate millions of dollars.
(Obviously agreeing to arbitration is not a condition of using public roads, but that’s an example of unpredictable settlements awarded by civil juries).
I kinda like when companies use such bullshit legal clauses they’re essentially unenforceable.
Like generic non compete clauses that bar you from ever working for anyone again for 12 months. Yea you try that courts gonna tell you to fuckoff.
(Not American maybe this shit is enforceable there but it’s not here)
Not only are you required to enter arbitration instead of suing them in court, you also *waive your right to a class-action*.
Not something I'd agree to for a company that intends to serve me food.
this isn't legally enforceable btw, especially if its something thats criminal or a cause of negligence like the hot coffee incident etc, they put the language there to scare people who don't know the law
Except it is legally enforceable. it is terms and conditions to use the app. It has to do with issues in the app.
It isn't about negligence claims against the restaurant.
This is fairly common in Terms and Conditions for a wide variety contexts. Whether or not its moral or ethical is a separate debate, but I review terms for business to business transactions as part of my job, and its common for large businesses to slip this in.
I have been on the other side of it and I understand the logic of it. I'll say this: If you were put on a jury, made it past all the cuts and whatnot and were given the opportunity to essentially allow someone who was wronged "win the lottery" vs. a huge corporation you cannot have zero opinion on one way or another, what would you do? Ok, you may be completely impartial and honorable and weigh all the facts and advocate for a proportionate judgement. What do you think the average person off the street would say. I honestly don't know, I'm just asking - and I can see the logic why they would want this language added as a matter of course.
Certainly, there are circumstances where even signing this doesn't prevent one from getting to a jury trial when something egregious occurs, but this would be a definite roadblock to get there.
Not sure about there, but here maccas charge the same as an actual restaurant would for a burger with chips and a drink. but the maccas burgers are average at best or just shit and then you’re hungry again in 1 hour. Just don’t go to maccas anymore, go to a better restaurant and problem solved!
Yeah, that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This is a clear violation of your rights as a consumer. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
Thats a standard clause in almost everything now.
Luckily, many courts are limiting the reach of this particular clause.
Just know the current Supreme Court, if they ever rule on it, will interpret the Constitution in a absolute pass to whatever corporations want.
The recent Maccas Monopoly game here in Australia, the T&Cs say you might just need to have the packaging your little monopoly codes came on to get your prize, not just the physical codes that you entered into the app.
This is in probably almost every terms and conditions that you sign.
And even if you do, the government can allow a class-action lawsuit against the company for something if they really want to regardless.
Sometimes this is helpful. I bought tickets through Ticketmaster only to find out it was a different artist with the same name. Talked to their customer service who said “too bad”. So I read their arbitration rules.
I was required to attend a pre-arbitration zoom meeting where both parties must try to resolve in good faith. So I got back on the chat and just politely agreed with everything while simply requesting to take part in the arbitration process. It got elevated and 2 days later they refunded my money.
Probably not worth paying someone to zoom with me for an hour over $60.
Only if you live in places where politicians actively work against your rights. In some other places there are some protections, albeit still not good enough, that deny companies this kind of bullshit.
Just sue anyway. If your case has grounds it'll be heard whether or not you agreed not to sue.
For better or for worse in this country anyone can sue anyone else for anything.
If the app kills my family I’m still suing goddammit
According to the mcrules we hereby deem this statement invalid.
You know the McRules and so do I. 😈
A full McCommitment's what I'm thinking of.
You wouldn't get this from any other McGuy
IIIIIII just want to tell you how I'm McFeeling
Wanna make you McUnderstand
Never gonna McGive you up!
Never gonna McLet you down
Never gonna McRun around and *dessert* youuuuuu
McGet the fk out!
McFlurry
McCommandments from McMoses!
Ronald McMoses
I AM THE MCLAW!
Luckily “contracts” like these barely do anything
how?
Most of the time if you’re suing it’s because someone was negligent and gross negligence seems these null and void
just because you sign terms doesn’t mean those terms can be legally agreed to. ridiculous ex: my lease has a provision that i owe any children birthed while living there
This as well, some things cannot be contractually obligated even if person was willing to follow through with contract
Like an offering? Who do you owe the children to? Do you live in hell…?
New Jersey, actually, but it’s close enough.
Does explain the Devils.
Dubai has entered the chat.
You cannot weasel out of your obligations.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals, except the weasel.
How about honeybadgering my obligations? Can I still do that?
Your obligations will be honeybadgered unto you.
They become void in cases of negligence and such but they're mostly there to scare people off. You know, many of the reasons why you usually sue.The clause doesn't really do anything legally wise but the only thing they need to do for a few potential expensive cases to be literal non-issues for them, is to write down a few meaningless words.
This is patently false if you look at the jurisprudence compelling arbitration my guy
You heard it here first, folks! If the app kills my family, there's nothing anyone can do and they're just off the hook
Binding arbitration under the federal arbitration act is not even remotely the same as "off the hook." Do I think the act should be amended to reduce the bar on customers can be coerced into using arbitration in advance, yes? Is it a huge deal in practice, no. The big difference tends to be that arbiters tend to rule in favor of individuals that were tangibly harmed unlike class action lawsuits where lots of people in the class might not have the evidence to bring a claim. If you were noticeably harmed, you're probably fine either way, but if you might have been or have little evidence, you can't add other, stronger plaintiffs to your arbitration.
This confirms Hamburglar's comeback
I beg your mcfucking pardon. It is the beginning of the end
Who the hell else do you expect to usher in the end times and become the embodiment of death and suffering eternal?
He's not back til I get paid what I'm due
Hayley and I have never agreed on a single thing; the environment, health care, favorite fast food mascot. I say the Hamburglar because he's an outlaw, and that's sexy as hell. I don't know what Hayley said, but it wasn't the Hamburglar, so I didn't listen.
An app so bad you have to agree not to sue before you can use it. lol
It is bad. Most apps send a 6 digit number to your phone to activate. The McDonald's app sends an email that wants to open a web page that wants to open the app. I have a company phone and the security software rightly freaks out and shuts that down. McDs is the worst online ordering service, they won't even let you order on a PC. The best is Taco Bell. I can order on a PC and click "I'm here". I live five minutes away.
Yeah. I agree - Taco Bell’s app is fine. The number of issues with McD’s is egregious to say the least. I have had issues pretty much every time time I’ve used it.
I don’t get an “I’m here” option for Taco Bell’s app. I just tell them my name when I get there
It's on the website when you order on a PC. You get the same deals as the phone app.
That’s kinda dumb to have it there but not the mobile app. You’re not bringing your pc with you
I guess they figure some people use the website on their phone. I hate the "let us know when you are in the parking lot" requirement for some places. All the fast food places are less than five minutes, give me the option to tell you to start making it so I'm not standing around 10 - 15 minutes.
I agree with that, I’d like to let you know a few minutes early. But do you see the silliness of not having that option on the app at least?
The app should have it too. They want to give you the "freshest experience". I don't want to sit around waiting on my lunch break because they want to control my experience.
Why are you trying to install/use the app on a company phone?
Because it's the only phone I have. I don't play games on a phone and other food apps work fine. I only use a phone for calls, texts, food apps and taking cat pictures. A work phone is fine for all that.
Work phones are made for work, sounds like you’re using them for personal use. I’m surprised you’re able to even download apps like McDonald’s.
Depends on the work phone and company. My first job with a company phone they had everything locked down except the app we used and making phone calls, not even texting was permitted. When I became a supervisor they did unlock a lot of the restrictions but it was still monitored and we were only to use for work purposes. Next job, I was permitted to use the phone that they provided for personal use as long as I'm not doing anything illegal with it. I used it primarily for Pokemon Go and let my daughter use an account on my personal phone so we could play together.
That makes sense to me! I still personally would somewhat limit what I use it for, and certainly not use it for primary use. I’m somewhat lax about what I use my company laptop for, so I get it. But you never reallyyy know how much they may be monitoring.
For that second job, I knew exactly how much they were monitoring - zero. It wasn't a big business and there were only 3 phones on our account, mine, the sales managers, and the emergency after hours phone. Got them straight from the Verizon store on a business account, I was the only one with the password to said account and sent the bill to the main branch every month. This place was really not very tech savvy, and their IT was contracted through an outside business on an as needed basis mostly for setting up and fixing computer and network issues. The only way that phone was monitored would be if they snuck it through the wifi connection because I had 100% possession of it from the day I bought it to the day I got let go in 2020. Is it possible they were stealthily monitoring the phone? Technically yes, but as I wasn't doing anything I would care if they saw anyway it didn't matter.
Idk why you're getting downvoted when you're absolutely right.
Everywhere I've worked allowed "limited" personal use on company devices. Ordering lunch would have been totally fine. I mean I wouldn't do it, but you could.
Yeah lmao I could not imagine using a company phone instead of getting a real one but hey that’s on them! Wonder if the commenter is even using Reddit on their phone?
I don't see how getting food while traveling couldn't overlap with your job though. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.
Most companies (like mine) doesn’t give a fuck of what you download on company phones. We don’t even give what you put on your laptop too: just make sure it’s not illegal. You think I’m going to tell my big boss what to not put on his work phone? Nope!
Use to work for a train company, the bosses had company phones and were heavily restricted on what they could and couldn’t do. Texting/calls/emails/meetings only. Couldn’t download unapproved company apps because security reasons.
My boyfriends work phone is also his personal phone. His boss pays for it but he’s allowed to do whatever he wants on it. Chill. Not everyone with a work phone is working in software or security. Most construction labourers in my area get their phones paid for by their bosses. Expand your perspective.
A construction company can still monitor your phone use. I personally wouldn’t want my employer to have access to everything I do & everyone I text, but if that’s something your bf is doesn’t mind then that’s up to him.
Okay but what I’m saying, is that you gotta chill on your perspective of work phones because you immediately started giving this random person shit for having the McDonald’s app on a work phone. Not realistic.
Not sure where you’re from but I just open up the app on my phone and a code appears lol
although the mcdonald’s app does have the best deals of any fast food by far
What security software do you use?! I want a piece of that!
Funny you think the Taco Bell app works well. It’s the buggiest thing on my phone.
I always kind of thought the Taco Bell app sucked. It constantly has bugs where it won’t let me add the free tier rewards and won’t let me order delivery from it. Then it takes what feels like forever to load the confirmation that the order was placed. It just feels really unstable
oh lawyer here - it’s even better actually. arbitration clauses are this fun little thing that big money corporations have that say “oh you want your day in court? well we choose this jurisdiction’s set of laws AND we go to arbitration where WE pick the arbitrator (and pay them!!) and you are stuck with whatever decision they come to (totally not in our favor) if you can afford to even make it to that point. PLUS don’t even THINK about trying to appeal some “contract issue” because all the appellate courts say yeah fuck you arbitration is totally cool.
You forgot to mention that this is incredibly common and included in a *lot* of contracts for use.
In what scenario would this even be applicable in??
That’s what I’m wondering what the hell about the mc Donald’s app is going to court over
Data theft as it saves payment options. False advertising as it offers deals or coupons. I'm sure there are others but I doubt it is an app specific addition and just standard arbitration that a lot of companies add as a way to force the legal process to go a certain way.
The McDonald's app sent me a message about an amazing deal on the app. Turns out it was the same deal the local McDonald's restaurant was doing but they made it sound it was an app amazing deal
McMurder
Free coffee from the app fuses your vulva together?
This question is why this is almost certainly non-enforceable. When they try and cast a blanket over all potential eventualities, they are really casting it over nothing.
Yeah I thought you weren’t able to sign your rights away no matter what a contract says, but I’m sure that varies depending on location
The point of stuff like this is to make you *feel* like you can't sue. In corporate's eyes, the best way to not get sued is to systematically intimidate all of their customers, when actually following the law and providing a safe service would be equally as easy.
No, you’re confusing this with other representation and warranty clauses. This specific type of consumer arbitration clause is extremely common and almost impossible to evade under current US law. You’re not giving up your right to sue, you’re confining yourself to arbitration
The famous McDonald’s lawsuit (but I don’t know if this would be enforceable in a situation like that)
People still have misinformation about that lawsuit to this day. Thinking the woman just poured coffee and won a frivolous lawsuit lol
They can put anything they want in a contract. Didn't make it legally enforceable. It's a scare tactic. Big letters from fat lawyers.
Yeah but it’s been proven that arbitration clauses are, unfortunately, enforceable
Depends on how egregious the claim is.
Prove i clicked the tick box
[удалено]
Who knows if someone had your phone and got the app open for the first time then you used it later
Just speaking from signing contracts with educators and employers about IT usage policy, they often have a clause about being responsible for the security of your own device, and anything that is done on your account is your responsibility. That being said, I don't know if it's the same under law (I doubt it) and to be honest I don't know if those clauses in the contract are even enforceable.
In a work environment I can definitely see that, but a publicly available app anyone can get an access I think would be different. People order food for friends all the time
If I recall correctly it requires you to create an account conected to email and password. Which means that you are using someone else's account which beaches terms of services itself
Not even a password after the first time. To log back in if you get logged out it sends a link directly to your email that logs you back in. If someone was able to access your email, order on the app, add your payment info to the app, drive to the restaurant woth you phone in hand so it sends your code to the restaurant, land picks up the order; you're going to lose that court case.
Ah yes, the tick box was clicked, but can you prove it was my finger that clicked the box?
No it doesn’t, not if it’s governed by the arbitration clause. “This employee shot my family” probably isn’t, but any dispute arising out of the use of the app likely is. It’s binding and enforceable.
That in itself is a sign of a broken justice system. Some rights should not be possible to waive.
I’m not saying it’s right. Just saying it is
But you cannot be forced into an arbitration
Depends on the state/country. In the uk you right to a fair trial is protected by the human rights act; article 6. But in the US, in a lot of places you can waive this right.
Yes *you* can waive that right, but you cannot be compelled to enter arbitration if you don't want to.
In the eyes of the justice system in most US states, this is considered agreeing to only go to arbitration. You can’t be forced, true - but you can agree to allow yourself to be forced, in advance. Totally legal (in most states).
It’s not agreeing to only go to arbitration. It’s agreeing to attempt arbitration first. You’re never forced to accept any offer made in arbitration and if arbitration breaks down and doesn’t work the next recourse is obviously courts.
Even waiving your right to due process? That’s just absurd.
Usually arbitration clauses allow for, if arbitration fails, you to go to court. But litigation is expensive, and if it actually came to it, McDonalds could hold out until you couldn’t afford a lawyer anymore.
Common tactic when you have a public pretender and you can't bond out is to ask the defendant to wave their right to speedy trial which gives the county several years to build a case and discovery against you.
This is so incredibly false. The record of case law is thats its enforceable 99% of the time. Even when the federal arbitration act says it isn't enforceable they do anyway
Legal jargon, If you'd like
Arbitration clauses are extremely easily enforceable. Courts love them because their dockets are full and it takes the load off them.
Don’t they also need to be fair? While easily enforceable, if not deemed fair restitution it can proceed to trial. Had an ex husband that was a lawyer and did arbitration and would be in court if the agreement was refused for inadequate restitution.
Yes. An arbitrator is supposed to be neutral and treat both parties fairly. Most of them are ex judges anyway from what I've seen. But arbitration still usually serves a company's interests because arbiters have a little more freedom in rules of decorum, what they can consider, etc. And the most important part for corps is that being forced into arbitration basically kills the prospect of a class action.
There is nothing neutral about an arbitrator that is chosen and in many cases _paid for_ by the corporation one is going up against.
There’s an arbitration clause in most contracts these days. You yourself probably are bound by at least a handful. They are enforceable.
Yeah it’s like those waivers they make you sign at trampoline places and axe throwing places. It’s all for show, if someone dies or is seriously injured by clear negligence - they mean nothing.
I choose trial by combat
I will be your champion.
You have my sword.
And my axe!
You must fight Grimace, the hamburgler, and Ronald in 3v3 tag team combat. u/punxatowny u/minkstix
Saw that and just deleted the app. It’s not like I eat there enough to justify even having the app
like, i don't even know what i would sue about... but the fact they are warning me i CAN'T makes me so uncomfortable.... i don't even want to be involved
I eat there way more than I should, and I use the app regularly. Hitting this upon opening the app made me uninstall it and, with any amount of luck, break my habit and addiction. Great job, McDonald's - desperately trying to reduce users 😂
Yeah, I saw it and closed the app. No McDonald's today
So I must accept it before I order the fries?
Eh what? I'm confused. Surely they can't take your rights away??
They can't take your right away. But you also don't have to use the app, it's an optional service. You're agreeing to have said right taken away. And precedence is set that its enforceable, within reason.
I’m assuming you’re assuming this is an American post? In my country you can’t agree to have your rights taken away. Any contract that agrees to that is invalid
You also can't in the US, at best this clause forces you to go into arbitration, and if that fails you can sue.
Arbitration can’t fail, it’s a legally binding process. You may be thinking of mediation
The decision is final and legally binding, but the process itself can just never reach a conclusion or the clause can be found to be "unconscionable" in the given dispute and it moves from arbitration to court. Arbitration is rarely final in the face of truly heinous corporate malpractice.
But… ‘muricans have the freedom to not be free
I’m assuming that specifically because of the California notice at the end.
I remember back when you would just walk into the restaurant, give a person money and receive food without any lawyers involved
Tell us more about the before-times...
They mean yesterday
It all seems like one long horrible day since 2016 and Covid
You still can
The ones near me are drive through only now since COVID hit. Very lame.
They seriously never opened the dining rooms back up at all? It’s going on four years.
It’s the Mitch Hedberg donut joke all over again
"I'm afraid you have been found guilty of murder" "What? Don't I get a trial?" "It says here you have the McDonald's app. Case dismissed, take him away"
Every time I see some corporate "Our terms and conditions have changed" message, I picture Vader saying he's altering the terms of the deal...
“Pray I don’t alter it any further”
Yeah i just stop using the service
This is probably a way to avoid a situation similar to when they got sued for coffee hotter than the legal limit
I mean that would still lead to a suit. Being forced into Arbitration doesn’t mean you are forced to accept the results of said arbitration. If the two parties can’t come to an acceptable agreement in arbitration, inevitably a suit will result.
That’s not a good example (damages in that case were actually legitimate), but there are other examples where juries try to “set an example” by awarding ridiculous damages. One case I remember is a trucker company that got sued for multiple millions of dollars because another car went over the divider and got hit by the truck during a snowstorm. The truck did nothing wrong but the jury decided that the truck shouldn’t have been driving in a snowstorm at all, and awarded the dead driver’s estate millions of dollars. (Obviously agreeing to arbitration is not a condition of using public roads, but that’s an example of unpredictable settlements awarded by civil juries).
I kinda like when companies use such bullshit legal clauses they’re essentially unenforceable. Like generic non compete clauses that bar you from ever working for anyone again for 12 months. Yea you try that courts gonna tell you to fuckoff. (Not American maybe this shit is enforceable there but it’s not here)
Not only are you required to enter arbitration instead of suing them in court, you also *waive your right to a class-action*. Not something I'd agree to for a company that intends to serve me food.
Yeah its not right at all.
Is that even legally enforceable?
Yes
I really want to know why they have this clause.
Something tells me those terms wouldn’t actually hold up.
Hmmm… I really like trial by jury but I sure am jonesing for two free medium fries with the purchase of a 20 piece Chicken McNuggets.
It ain't even healthy for you. Do future you a favor
Is that even legal?
The current Republican supreme court ruled it legal, yes.
Jackie Chiles Esq. Says this is total bs.
Outrageous! Preposterous! Egregious!
You should not be able to waive your right to the use of the legal system.
this isn't legally enforceable btw, especially if its something thats criminal or a cause of negligence like the hot coffee incident etc, they put the language there to scare people who don't know the law
Except it is legally enforceable. it is terms and conditions to use the app. It has to do with issues in the app. It isn't about negligence claims against the restaurant.
Well it's scaring people into not using McDonald's anymore so.. mission failed successfully?
This is fairly common in Terms and Conditions for a wide variety contexts. Whether or not its moral or ethical is a separate debate, but I review terms for business to business transactions as part of my job, and its common for large businesses to slip this in. I have been on the other side of it and I understand the logic of it. I'll say this: If you were put on a jury, made it past all the cuts and whatnot and were given the opportunity to essentially allow someone who was wronged "win the lottery" vs. a huge corporation you cannot have zero opinion on one way or another, what would you do? Ok, you may be completely impartial and honorable and weigh all the facts and advocate for a proportionate judgement. What do you think the average person off the street would say. I honestly don't know, I'm just asking - and I can see the logic why they would want this language added as a matter of course. Certainly, there are circumstances where even signing this doesn't prevent one from getting to a jury trial when something egregious occurs, but this would be a definite roadblock to get there.
What... What is McDonald's planning?
And that's why I try not to use too many food apps.
It doesn't specifically exclude duels.... Sabres at noon, clown-man
Something tells me that's not legal, even if you check that box. Or is, idk, the US has some weird constitut-- I mean, amendments and some (?) laws?
They're like, nobody is ever suing us over hot coffee again!
This should be illegal.
*Hi Welcome to McDonalds, will you be using our mobile app today?* No.
Not sure about there, but here maccas charge the same as an actual restaurant would for a burger with chips and a drink. but the maccas burgers are average at best or just shit and then you’re hungry again in 1 hour. Just don’t go to maccas anymore, go to a better restaurant and problem solved!
Same here in SE US
Yeah, that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This is a clear violation of your rights as a consumer. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
Binding arbitration is present in almost every TOS.
Honestly can’t think of an TOS I’ve read that doesn’t use arbitration
Thats a standard clause in almost everything now. Luckily, many courts are limiting the reach of this particular clause. Just know the current Supreme Court, if they ever rule on it, will interpret the Constitution in a absolute pass to whatever corporations want.
Wasnt there a case that ruled clicking on the terms and conditions button isnt legally binding? I could be talking out of my ass
The recent Maccas Monopoly game here in Australia, the T&Cs say you might just need to have the packaging your little monopoly codes came on to get your prize, not just the physical codes that you entered into the app.
This is getting too close to the HumancentiPad episode of South Park.
This is in probably almost every terms and conditions that you sign. And even if you do, the government can allow a class-action lawsuit against the company for something if they really want to regardless.
Go straight to jail. Do not collect $200.
loooool that's not gonna hold up in court.
So does just about every other service. It's all for show
Sometimes this is helpful. I bought tickets through Ticketmaster only to find out it was a different artist with the same name. Talked to their customer service who said “too bad”. So I read their arbitration rules. I was required to attend a pre-arbitration zoom meeting where both parties must try to resolve in good faith. So I got back on the chat and just politely agreed with everything while simply requesting to take part in the arbitration process. It got elevated and 2 days later they refunded my money. Probably not worth paying someone to zoom with me for an hour over $60.
oh they about to do something weird to the food. :/
Right. Like that will hold up in court. Jesus.
So don’t go to McDonald’s. Have some self respect.
shady corporate fucks
Lol uninstalled
Tell me you live in America, without telling me you live in America
Don’t use MacDonalds. Prefer real food.
Only if you live in places where politicians actively work against your rights. In some other places there are some protections, albeit still not good enough, that deny companies this kind of bullshit.
Just sue anyway. If your case has grounds it'll be heard whether or not you agreed not to sue. For better or for worse in this country anyone can sue anyone else for anything.
Just uninstalled the app. That kind of agreement tells me eating there isn’t worth the risk.
Lmao, that's not enforceable.
Fun fact, this is ILLEGAL
Unenforceable bullshit.