this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
1081 points (99.1% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41167 readers
2568 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

a kidney or other superfluous organs. mmm fruity

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 420 points 1 week ago (8 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 270 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 81 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Contractual malicious compliance let's go

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 249 points 1 week ago (2 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 54 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 151 points 1 week ago (5 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.

[–] UberKitten@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

prop 65 is a useless law that goes against known science about hazard limits, causing manufacturers to have to label nearly everything with warnings. if a company is violating that law, it usually doesn’t mean much.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Found searching ‘“vital proteins” lawsuit’

that's just cheating

[–] lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 days ago

In the ’20s tho? Not rly

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world 130 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] S0ck@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I wonder if we're not fucking ourselves.

"Not enforceable" may have been a thing of the past, with the way technology has developed. We may be approaching a point where terms & conditions ARE enforceable.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 108 points 1 week ago (6 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 51 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

This, and contract details that are shown after opening the packaging (as seen here covered by the lid) are void.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 94 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 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.

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Yep, I was just agreeing with someone else saying this is unenforceable. Just a ridiculous ploy and an attempt to make it precedent.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 92 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago (1 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…

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sometimes mandatory arbitration doesn't work out so well for companies either as Valve found out. When they run into what are effectively class action lawsuits but they get forced into individual arbitration with hundreds of thousands of people that clause starts to look really dumb.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 75 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 73 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago

That's concerning.

[–] Part4@infosec.pub 53 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheCleric@lemmy.org 53 points 1 week 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

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Interesting how we've all become accustomed to the notion that "agreeing to arbitration" has just become "waving your consumer rights" and no lawmaker is pushing to have that fixed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Albbi@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›