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.

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

Isn't that an illegally forced agreement? I mean, the consumer already bought the product and is forced to enter an agreement after the fact? At least it feels like it would be illegal.

It's the same with software, sure, but somehow I've been brainwashed into thinking it's ok because it's a digital product/I only agree to a license of said product.

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.

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.

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

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.

Forced Arbitration should be illegal everywhere.

By reading this comment, you agree to be bound eternally in thrall to me, and wear a maid dress for my amusement.

Time to use the box cutter and open it from the bottom.

That's concerning.

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

Vital Proteins got bought out by Nestle and almost immediately turned to shit iirc

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.

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

"By opening AND using this product (...)"

Have someone else open it for you, then consume the product yourself. Boom, no contract. Checkmate, lawyers!

At the board meeting, I want to hear when they decided to broadcast that they're expecting to get sued, but in a really cute way