How is this different from, “Why yes you may visit my house, but you must agree to give up your right to sue me”.
???
Guess they don’t need our business, huh?
They can claim what they want.
Litigation and the ability to sue is another/ separate legal issue.
So many terms of service have become ludicrous, that some reasonable and witty corporations have been including silly things in them, just to see if any reads them. Fortunately it is done in jest.
“If you phone our hotline or send us snail mail, you can sue. But if you contact us on our website, you can’t.”
Huh?? What’s next? “If you eat two bowls of Cheerios, you can sue; but you can’t if you eat only one bowl.” Or “You can only sue if you consume Yoplait and Cheerios every day for a month.”
Sometimes when the market punishes, it punishes brutally. And it punishes stupidity regardless of ideology or which politicians you’ve bought and paid for:-)
FWIW, the story is not as it’s being portrayed.
The company’s new terms prohibited people from suing them over some issue involving the websites they visit, not from purchase of physical products.
IOW, if the coupon I download from a GM website isn’t honored at the local Winn-Dixie, I can’t sue GM.
When they went pro-sodomy on the Minnesota marriage vote a year or two ago, I began to purposefully avoid General Mills garbage.
Haven’t really missed them.