MrConsumer admittedly does not know a lot about cars or car repairs, but doesn’t like to pay a lot when his 1996 Honda Accord needs fixing.
About 10 years ago, he had Meineke install a muffler with a lifetime warranty. Maybe five years later, it rusted through and needed replacement again. The “gotcha” with guarantees like this is that you have to pay for labor and other parts, and it comes out costing almost as much as replacing a conventional muffler. So when that muffler went again, MrConsumer decided to go to his trusted gas station mechanic instead.
After dropping off the car, the verdict came from the repairman by telephone: it would cost $400 to replace that muffler with another “lifetime warranty” one. MrConsumer gave the go-ahead, and the car was fixed a few hours later.
Scrutinizing the receipt, MrConsumer noted that the muffler itself was $260, but wondered what an auto parts store would have charged for it. Advance Auto Parts was $172.99 — nearly $90 less. Ugg. Autozone was $149.99 — $110 less, but there was a $50 additional rebate. Double ugg. And PepBoys.com was $103.99 less 25% or $77.99 AND the $50 rebate also applied there. Shoot me now.
Then a brainstorm hit MrConsumer. The purchase was made with a Fidelity MasterCard that has a “price protection” benefit that would provide up to a $250 refund if a purchased item could be found for less elsewhere. As MrConsumer was relishing getting his $260 muffler for a mere $27.99, he checked the fine print of the bank’s price protection benefit.
*MOUSE PRINT:
What items are not covered?
The Price Protection program applies only to items purchased in the United States of America, including Alaska and Hawaii. This program does not cover any of the following:
…
Motorized vehicles of any kind and their parts and equipment, including, but not limited to, boats or watercraft, air vehicles, automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles.
Foiled again. Drats.
One last hope: what if the charge had been put on his Chase Freedom card instead? Nope. Their price protection policy excludes automobile “equipment.”
So MrConsumer learned an expensive lesson about car repair shops marking up the cost of parts, and will have to be content with at least getting back $50 under the manufacturer’s rebate.
We’ve done a number of stories about juice products that look like one type of juice, but really are primarily another.
Here’s another egregious example, Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry:
While the company does call this a juice blend, its primary ingredients are neither pomegranate nor blueberry juice.
*Mouse Print:
Worse than the not-very-surprising fact that apple juice is the primary ingredient, is the actual amount of pomegranate and blueberry juices in the bottle.
According to a lawsuit by Pom Wonderful (not exactly a paragon of straight talk about its own brand of pomegranate juice), the actual amount of pomegranate juice and blueberry juice is tiny:
*MOUSE PRINT:
Coca-Cola’s “Pomegranate Blueberry†product contains only 0.3% pomegranate juice and 0.2% blueberry juice; it consists primarily of (less expensive and less desirable) apple and grape juices, which amount to over 99% of the juice.
What? Just one-half of one-percent of the primary ingredients featured on the front of the bottle? According to Pom’s lawyer, that is about one teaspoon in half a gallon of juice.
It seems to us that Minute Maid left out the key component of this beverage from their ingredients list: baloney!
The New York Times last week published an eye-opening story about General Mills, the big cereal maker. It noted that after being stung in court by a consumer class action, the company updated its legal terms to say that any beef you have with the company can only be pursued through informal negotiations or mandatory arbitration — no lawsuits (other than small claims) allowed.
It announced these changes at GeneralMills.com, in fine print at the top the page:
In exchange for the benefits, discounts, content, features, services, or other offerings that you receive or have access to by using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community, subscribing to our email newsletters, downloading or printing a digital coupon, entering a sweepstakes or contest, redeeming a promotional offer, or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering, you are agreeing to these terms.
ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM MADE BY YOU AGAINST GENERAL MILLS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR YOUR PURCHASE OR USE OF ANY GENERAL MILLS SERVICE OR PRODUCT (INCLUDING GENERAL MILLS PRODUCTS PURCHASED AT ONLINE OR PHYSICAL STORES FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD USE) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE OR CLAIM IS BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT, STATUTE, FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY (TOGETHER, A “DISPUTEâ€) WILL BE RESOLVED BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS OR THROUGH BINDING ARBITRATION, AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
So, merely printing a coupon for a GM product, “liking” them on Facebook, or perhaps just buying a single package of Cheerios, Yoplait yogurt, Gold Medal flour, or a can of Green Giant peas will automatically mean that you give up your right to individually sue the company, and cannot participate as a member of a class action lawsuit.
The company is letting people opt-out of these provisions, but once you use any of the companies’ websites or print another coupon, for example, you are on the hook again.
While one could interpret the language of their agreement to only be triggered when a consumer uses their websites, downloads a coupon, or otherwise interacts with the company, the broad nature of the restriction — possibly being triggered by a purchasing a product — will surely come under legal scrutiny. How can you be held to an agreement you never saw or actually agreed to?
When asked to comment on the company’s new anti-consumer policy, all the Jolly Green Giant would say is:
However, the company had a change of heart over this past weekend, cancelled the new terms including all references to arbitration, and posted this statement on their blog:
“As has been widely reported, General Mills recently posted a revised set of Legal Terms on our websites. Those terms – and our intentions – were widely misread, causing concern among consumers.
So we’ve listened – and we’re changing them back to what they were before.
We rarely have disputes with consumers – and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled. Many companies do the same, and we felt it would be helpful.
But consumers didn’t like it.
So we’ve reverted back to our prior terms. There’s no mention of arbitration, and the arbitration provisions we had posted were never enforced. Nor will they be. We stipulate for all purposes that our recent Legal Terms have been terminated, that the arbitration provisions are void, and that they are not, and never have been, of any legal effect.
That last bit is from our lawyers.
We’ll just add that we never imagined this reaction. Similar terms are common in all sorts of consumer contracts, and arbitration clauses don’t cause anyone to waive a valid legal claim. They only specify a cost-effective means of resolving such matters. At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood.
Not that any of that matters now.
On behalf of our company and our brands, we would also like to apologize. We’re sorry we even started down this path. And we do hope you’ll accept our apology. We also hope that you’ll continue to download product coupons, talk to us on social media, or look for recipes on our websites.” –Kirstie Foster, Director of External Communications
Nothing like bad press to convince a company to do the right thing.
Lost in the controversy about mandatory arbitration is the other thing that General Mills just did — they changed their privacy policy. The new little ditties they added include their collection of information about you from social networks and other third parties; how they combine that data with their own information to target market to you; and that if your browser sends a “do not track” command to them on your behalf, they will ignore it.
When asked to comment on their privacy policy changes, all the Pillsbury Doughboy would say is:
