this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
625 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41043 readers
1392 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Write on the money you used to purchase this by accepting this money you agree to the terms of service...

Eat shit turdblossoms.

[–] SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 53 points 5 hours ago

Mandatory arbitration agreement for a protein shake or whatever it is. First it may not be enforceable. Second it makes me think that this product is not fit for consumption.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 55 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

No way this is legally binding. It amounts to a bait and switch. A product was purchased and provided without agreement to any further terms. Then they sneak in supposed terms after the fact based upon the action of opening the product. That is a change in agreement made without any consideration for the purchaser. That's not generally allowed in contact law.

Furthermore, I really doubt that they can get away with the argument that the act of opening a product can constitute any amount of conscious agreement to some writing on a package. If for no other reason than that this is (afaik) a novel way to attempt to coerce agreement such that nobody would expect such an agreement to be part of the opening process and likely won't notice it.

And it's not accessible for every person who may be using this product even if they do notice the words. Are you a non-English speaker? Farsighted? Blind? Illiterate? Would you have any way to even be aware that those words are terms that somehow binding you to an agreement by virtue of your opening the thing you just bought? Would you have any reason to even suspect that that is the case?

Also, they'll undoubtedly claim that the fact that you have the opened product means that you agreed to the terms, but that is also not the case. Your mom opened it for you and wrapped it as a gift? You bought it secondhand? The packaging was torn open when it shipped to you and you never had any reason to see this text in the first place? It was misprinted? Any of those things and more would mean you never agreed to anything. And they have no way to prove any of those things weren't the case.

Just stupid. I have zero doubt that any number of lawyers would love take this to court and get that payday.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 10 points 4 hours ago

All it does is prove to the purchaser that the fuckers don't trust the basic safety and fitness for use of their product. Spectacular self own.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Absofuckinglutely

If I bought it and got home and found this, I'd return it as I have before. You're not trapping me into agreeing for anything without the notice on the OUTSIDE of the product packaging. Fuck this

[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Plus it speaks volumes to the product itself. If they're trying to pull shit like this there's no way I'm trusting whatever they're trying to get me to put in my body.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, feels like a trick.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 34 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Is there a bigger red flag than a message on it saying 'if you break this seal you can't sue us!'

[–] muhyb@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ackchyually, that makes it easier to sue them.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Attorney: -calls witness, a physicist- Physicist: “by simply observing this product, even without opening it, your clients life was changed in some way.” Attorney: “crazy label people, pay up!”

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 6 hours ago

This isn't mildly annoying, this is corporate hellscape.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 61 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

There's an easy solution: keep buying it, break the seal to get to the message, then return it. Have your friends do the same, at the same store. Pretty soon that product will be gone and you can move on to the next store.

If the store starts to bitch about it, you can claim that you wanted to see if the statement had been removed.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 62 points 7 hours ago

Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.

[–] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 6 hours ago

Open it from the bottom.

[–] TheCleric@lemmy.org 46 points 8 hours ago

I hope you returned that shit. That’s not mildly infuriating, that’s capitalism has officially run amok and needs to be taken out back and shot in the head

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 78 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Add to this the fact they try to enforce mandatory arbitration - a thing that shouldn't ever exist to begin with, in any jurisdiction, and is actually unenforceable in many.

[–] lauha@lemmy.world 33 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

In most of Europe, no contract can take away legal rights

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Same in the USA, but that doesn't mean they won't try.

[–] musky_occultist@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure forced arbitration is in fact legal and enforceable in the US (at least for the most part? I am not a lawyer)

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Unfortunately, the US doesn't yet consider that a legal right. Sadly, courts take the position that if you don't agree with the terms, don't buy the product. Even in the cases where you couldn't access the terms ahead of the sale.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 295 points 12 hours ago (7 children)

It says you're bound by "opening and using" the product, rather than "opening or using". Have someone else open it for you. Then neither of you have done both.

[–] naught101@lemmy.world 190 points 11 hours ago

Thus is the kind of legalistic bullshit interpretation I can get right behind

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Contractual malicious compliance let's go

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah but just to be clear, the terms are likely there for a reason and using this product probably has risks associated.

The only product I want to use with a liability waiver attached is the bungie cord at the fair.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Apparently, it's full of lead.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Why would a bungee cord have lead?

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 4 hours ago

Weight makes you go faster

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 173 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

This is Vital Proteins brilliant response to being taken to court over heavy metal and "foreign materials" contamination in their products.

[–] Brunette6256@sh.itjust.works 38 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Do you have any supporting links? I saw a reddit post saying something similar but I cant find a real article or support. Either way I am returning the product.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 96 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/2017-02480C5316.pdf

Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’

Sued by an environmental nonprofit for failing to warn about the presence of lead and heavy metals as required by CA law. They settled.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 15 points 8 hours ago

Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’

that's just cheating

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 33 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

Holy shit. How does this not just reduce their sales to 0?

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 21 points 9 hours ago

Well, the purchase is probably already made by the time this is seen, and for those who see it, they probably just ignore it similarly to EULA popups when installing programs.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 17 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 12 points 7 hours ago

Assuming you're talking about the US, this is correct.

In the US you need to both actively acknowledge acceptance of the T&Cs, which simply opening a package typically doesn't meet.

Also, and arguably more important, they need to include the entirety of the T&Cs for you to be able to review before accepting. This means on the packaging or presented at time of purchase, not requiring you to go elsewhere to find them or having to search them out.

Now even though it's not legally enforceable, I'd say it's still scummy and companies that do it should be avoided.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 24 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

A good attorney could argue that drilling a hole in the side of the carton does not constitute opening the package.

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

The cap also says "by using", so you have been outlawyered. You've been had. You have forfeited all your rights. You are now a property of Big Protein. Better luck next time.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

By opening AND using.

A good lawyer would surely argue that they didn’t open and use it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ScatterBrain@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is what I imagine buying kratom is like

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Not really. They just hand you the powder in a pouch and say "that'll be $16.42, please".

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 85 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Would love to see them try and enforce whatever EULA they wrote up.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 50 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

They’ll drag out any legal challenge in hopes you won’t want to pay for months of legal fees fighting it, on top of whatever legal fees are incurred that caused you to challenge it in the first place…

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 14 points 9 hours ago

Obvious solution is to not only return that one, but then go to a different brand of store, buy a bunch, then return them the next day. Repeat for each kind of store you can reach that sells them.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 51 points 12 hours ago

That's concerning.

load more comments
view more: next ›