If something in a contract is in violation of federal law, then that section of the contract is null and void.
It’s a big reason why my boss is free to have me sign a contract saying that he is allowed to execute me if I don’t clean the floor well enough to his liking, but if he actually tries it he’s not only doing some time, but this contract means that he is absolutely the primary suspect.
So, the play here is to get everyone who agreed to the app to file a binding arbitration suit against McDonalds for wedging a binding arbitration clause into the app.
They have to respond to it and it will cost them a lot of lawyer time and money.
Ain’t no way something like that could actually hold up in court. But I guarantee McDonald’s lawyers could fucking use it to delay shit and just hold up people for way longer than people want to invest time into.
You’d be surprised
App = Shitty web view with telemetry and push notif that brings nothing of value compared to a normal website
Hate to say it but if you go frequently you can save a lot of money with the app deals. Speaking as a former fat ass.
deleted by creator
Hello current fat ass. It’s also worth remembering you add in the cost of the app selling your data. And a trick: if you want to use multiple coupons or redeem points and also use a coupon (can’t do both), make multiple orders for each.
deleted by creator
click wrap isn’t binding
Good luck against McDonald’s legal team! This is America. The law is written on $100 bills.
I did employment training for a job with a big company. One of the examples we were given was something like this:
Tom had to hire someone for a job. He chose to hire someone currently under investigation for some sketchy shit. Our company got investigated for it. After 5 years and $10 million in legal fees, our company was cleared of any wrongdoing. Tom was fired.
Ain’t no way that shit is legal, right?
In the United States, multi-national corporations have try really hard to be on the receiving end of consequences.
Like maybe kill more children than the Joker via contaminated food. And then, still, it’ll be a meager fine.
I wanne see them try that in Germany so they get fucked even harder than if they normally had a lawsuit on their ass
their app also checks if your phone is rooted
How are they even going to prove a specific person agreed to these terms or even used their app?
Using the app forces you to log in (via email or similar). And that can be backtracked to you if you’re not careful!
The last time I checked, they didn’t even require clicking any confirmation email. Every time I visit a McDonald’s I reinstall their app and just create a new bullshit account with a temporary email which I don’t even need to check. For all they know, you might have created an account with my email and agreed to the terms (just an example). It’s unenforceable on so many levels I’m dumbfounded.
Are you gonna do a perjury and say it wasn’t you that made the account? As much as I tell myself “oops ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I accidentally clicked a button without reading what it said,” I’m not ready to keep that up with a lawyer going through my account history and showing that I ordered a baconator and a whopper on July 19th 2021, and they happen to have video of me inside the store picking up that exact order that I paid for with my credit card
surely not even an American judge would uphold that, right? Surely
Actually this is one of the instances where America law proves that Justice is at least somewhat of a concept, I mean holy shit we’re not Japan. No seriously look at how they do Court over in the Land of the Rising Sun.
Japan has a 99.9% conviction rate, how many of you people knew that the Phoenix Wright series was actually intended as a scathing critique of the legal system of the country it was made in?
If something in a contract is in violation of state or federal law, then that provision of the contract is null and void.
There have been many instances of companies saying that you don’t have any rights because you sign them away in the licensing agreement, only for a judge to turn around and call bullshit. The preceddnt is basically cemented in stone at this point.
Holy shit America did something right? I can’t believe it.
A friend of mine once said, that some things are too good to be true, but fortunately there are also some things that are too bad to be true.
I agree with everything here, but I wouldn’t use conviction rate as a good metric. The US has a fairly disgusting conviction rate itself (especially federally) linked in with that whole “plea guilty to 6-60 months (judge’s prerogative) or face 40 years to get a trial, but we don’t call that duress”.
I’ve only once seen a guilty plea where the defendant is asked under oath if they actually agree there’s enough evidence to convict them, and that was a high-profile person getting a slap on the wrist for basically treason.
Out of curiosity, who?
99% sure it was Sydney Powell. If I’m remembering wrong, then it was Jenna Ellis. Coulda been both. In Ms. Ellis’ guilty plea (I skimmed the video of it) she was bombarded with 5 minutes of confirming questions and I don’t have time to listen to all of them. This recently came up on… I think it was Legal Eagle’s analysis of all these guilty pleas, and if you haven’t checked him out and are interested, you might want to (he’s on Youtube)
Things like this make me think we need to change contract law to include some kind of requirement that whoever is entering into a contract have actually read and understood the contract in order for their signature on it to be meaningful. I’m not entirely sure how you’d go about setting up a system to prove this, so some compromise to practically might have to be made, but some possibilities I can see might be having the signer initial or check off each point individually, having a physical contract signing be accompanied by video of the person reading through the contract or having it explained to them, or having a neutral third party witness also sign to affirm that they witnessed this being done, or in the case of digital contracts, having each point be ticked off individually with a checkbox for a given section not made available until after a reasonable amount of time to read the section has elapsed since the previous checkbox was checked, and having a requirement that contracts made to be signed by people who are not lawyers must be written so as to be understandable by someone not versed in legal jargon.
It would be a massive headache I realize, since it would make anything where contracts are agreed to take longer and have more paperwork to document things or programming to be done for digital ones, but on the plus side, it would disincentise companies making huge terms of service contracts and end user license agreements that everybody knows virtually nobody actually reads, and make people more aware of what they’re actually agreeing to.
So many words to say “shift responsibility to the consumer”.
No.
How about instead, we demand companies stop forcing people to sign pages and pages worth of bullshit “contracts” (not even going in to how many are legal or in any way enforceable) for every simple fucking interaction because they’re so desperate to cover their own asses and protect every cent they’ve extracted from their minimum wage employees??
Fuck, I wish people would shift their fucking focus to where it belongs already… 🤦♀️
You misunderstand my intent. Stopping companies from making people sign giant excessive contracts is entirely my point; nobody is going to want to use your app if it takes forever to even install it because of all the legal stuff they’d have to agree to, things they’re already agreeing to, but not knowing about. My thinking is that it would force companies to only make contracts where actually necessary and as short as possible. How does this shift responsibility to the consumer? They are, after all, not usually the ones creating the contracts.
