196

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.

App = Shitty web view with telemetry and push notif that brings nothing of value compared to a normal website

Ain't no way that shit is legal, right?

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.

I wanne see them try that in Germany so they get fucked even harder than if they normally had a lawsuit on their ass

surely not even an American judge would uphold that, right? Surely

This would make they pay more for a lawsuit in a country that takes consumer protection seriously, lol. Samsung had to pay me 5k(35% to the lawyer) because they refused to deliver a fridge on my apartment. They delayed the delivery, had me hours on hold, insult and tried to fright me whenever they talked to me. The fridge was 4,5k and it got done within 10 months. So good luck to Mac Donald's.

How are they even going to prove a specific person agreed to these terms or even used their app?

I know a 100% free non EULA way

Have you ever been a successful plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit? Those fries are worth more than you would have gotten.

like how the fine print is that you also have to buy something to get free fries

Imagine anyone unironically swallowing down that pig swill

Actually I used to and can confirm how disgusting and worthless it is. It's not even worth it for the free fries. You barely get any "meat" on the burgers; they're mostly bread and iceberg lettuce which is actually bad for you too.

Even the fucking donuts I eat are better than that disgusting trash. 🤦

Oh, and here's the kicker: the only demographic that eats there consistently is the extreme poor who are unlikely to understand terms of service and contracts, and these deals are designed to exploit them. They, I feel bad for. Anyone who has money and chooses to waste it on that lukewarm basura deserves the suffering they get.

Legally binding food. Cool and normal.

App is shit. Local store made a mistake told me to contact corporate. Corporate told me to talk to local. Eventually was told escalated to tech team. Crickets for two weeks. Had to file dispute with credit card to get my money back.

Uninstalled app and haven't been back to McDonald's since. Fuck em. They have shit support and a shit app.

That should be illegal to add this in the ToS

Is getting people to forego their rights for some free chips bribery?

We live in hell

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.

click wrap isn't binding

Won't hold up in court, but more importantly, don't order from them because of the free meals they're giving to people committing genocide.

Yeah but like, fries