The curse of being a law student in the US is being cursed with always having to explain why the hot coffee lawsuit was actually totally meritorious and justified.
Sorry (not sorry) for the vore
vore artist | lawyer | trans
Porcupine, Striped Hyena, Sylveon
telegram
@zdarlight1
telegram art channel
t.me/ZdarlightArtmastodon
gulp.cafe/@zdarlightfuraffinity
www.furaffinity.net/user/zdarlightletterboxd
I don't want to put the username here but feel free to ask if we're in touch with each other.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @jkap's post:
as someone who reads ToSes on sites when I'm bored I can say that most of them have binding arbitration provisions in them and have for many years. They're getting more and more common, but I suspect that McDonalds already had an Arbitration provision in their ToS. They're just being more upfront about it now than they used to be.
I think I remember reading something about either a ruling or a regulation somewhere (possibly California but I'm not sure) that suggested that the standard language was unenforceable because people don't actually read the ToS and so don't know they're agreeing to it. As a result, companies are trying to disclose this up front more clearly so that it will hold up in court. I can't find a source for that though (I did try though) so don't quote me on that.
where even is this. is this on a touchscreen menu or do you have a Mcdonalds Account
i was really impressed at how accurate of a joke this was until i realized that it was not a joke
i clicked the checkbox for the funnies of seeing whether it was given some sort of css functionality before realizing that it was a flippin' screenshot
in reply to @jkap's post:
I can't be too surprised considering this is the company that tried to make a woman who had received third degree burns from their coffee seem completely unreasonable
This is worrying. Also, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I FOUND THIS ON MY APP ON THE WAY HOME JUST NOW🤬
Because you're gonna order a McFlurry, be charged back because the machine is broken, and like it.
in reply to @micolithe's post:
oh wow, indeed
the company did a good job of dominating the narrative on the original lawsuit - a lot of people back in the day didn't know how serious the burns were, or that the company had been advised in writing not to store its coffee at that temperature for safety reasons, and decided in writing to do so anyway
It wasn't until i took American Law as an elective in high school that I really learned that no that woman needed skin grafts and stuff.
For me it wasn't until I took torts in law school that I learned the truth of that case (and my professor still tried to minimize it, but he was a bit of a chud in general so it's not shocking)
Is this just going to be the reason I learn about any given company doing Horrible Shit anymore? They try to update their UI or their ToS or unveil a new logo to try to paper over it?
That's unfortunately the reality of how it works
I guess I'm just gonna have to imagine that every given company has a redesigned logo just waiting on the sidelines to be revealed when the company most needs people to not be thinking about their latest BS, the same way every company has a monthly budget dedicated to paying out-of-court settlements and court-awarded damages from lost lawsuits.
Some day I'm gonna see something completely innocent, like a public library, get a new logo and think, "oh great, what are they hiding now"