General Mills updated their online Privacy Policy to say that anyone who’s received any benefit from them — even downloading an online coupon, or liking their Facebook page — can’t sue them. Instead, they must settle any disputes about the purchase or use of any of their products in forced arbitration. Is this legal? 
 
 According to a 2011 Supreme Court ruling — yes. It is. The case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion gave companies the right to stop customers from joining together for class-action lawsuits by including language in the contracts they sign. Check your phone contract. There’s likely something in there telling you you can’t sue your provider. 
 
 Here’s the exact language from the General Mills Privacy Policy update: 
 
 • New provisions relating to any disputes. These new provisions contain an agreement to resolve any and all disputes you may have with General Mills or any of its affiliated companies or brands contain through informal negotiations and, if these negotiations fail, through binding arbitration. This includes disputes related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service. All arbitrations will be conducted on an individual basis; you may not arbitrate as a member of a class. Claims may not be brought in court (with the limited exception of small claims court in certain circumstances), nor may you participate in any class action litigation. (See Section 3, “Binding Arbitration.”) • New provisions about how you become bound by these legal terms and how you can opt out of them. Your use of any of our sites or services, or participation in any other General Mills offering, means that you are agreeing to these Legal Terms. You may terminate this agreement at time by notifying us by email of your intent to do so, but only if you also cease to participate in any of our offerings. (For details, see Section 1, “Your Agreement to these Terms” and Section 2, “Duration of this Agreement; Your Right to Terminate.”) 
 
 As General Mills also points out, these are only “brief summaries of some of the significant changes to the Privacy Policy and Legal terms.” 
 
 The key bit is in the second paragraph: “You may terminate this agreement at time by notifying us by email of your intent to do so, but only if you also cease to participate in any of our offerings.” We couldn’t find a contact email for General Mills, but there is an online form to email them here. They do note that emailing them isn’t enough. You also have to “cease to participate in any of our offerings.” They outline what exactly that means in their Legal Terms which can be read on their site. 
 
 Here’s the relevant section: 
 
 1. Your agreement to these legal terms These terms are a binding legal agreement (“Agreement”) between you and General Mills. In exchange for the benefits, discounts, content, features, services, or other offerings that you receive or have access to by using our websites, joining our sites as a member, joining our online community, subscribing to our email newsletters, downloading or printing a digital coupon, entering a sweepstakes or contest, redeeming a promotional offer, or otherwise participating in any other General Mills offering, you are agreeing to these terms. Of course, your decision to do any of these things (i.e., to use or join our site or online community, to subscribe to our emails, to download or print a digital coupon, to enter a sweepstakes or contest, to take advantage of a promotional offer, or otherwise participate in any other General Mills offering) is entirely voluntary. But if you choose to do any of these things, then you agree to be bound by this Agreement. 
 
 General Mills notified customers by adding a small gray banner to the top of their page today. I looked at their Facebook page for Lucky Charms, and there’s no mention of the change despite the new language applying to any of the General Mills brands. General Mills themselves doesn’t seem to have a Facebook page. Facebook has generated an automatic place holder for the brand with their Wikipedia page and a few related pages. 
 
 (General Mills via The New York Times, image via General Mills) 
 
 Meanwhile in related links ||||| The National Organization for Marriage, the group leading what it has acknowledged is an uphill fight to stop same sex marriage, charged giant cereal maker General Mills, a mainstay of many a family breakfast table, with trying to destroy heterosexual marriage. 
 
 On Thursday, the group accused General Mills CEO of declaring a “war on marriage” with its own customers because General Mills CEO Ken Powell spoke at an LGBT pride event saying the company opposes an amendment to ban same sex marriage in Minnesota, where it is headquartered. 
 
 Minnesotans will vote on a ballot measure in November that would amend their state constitution to ban same sex marriage. 
 
 The cereal maker issued a statement saying, “We do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy — and as a Minnesota-based company we oppose it.” 
 
 Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said, “General Mills makes billions marketing cereal to parents of young children. It has now effectively declared a war on marriage with its own customers when it tells the country that it is opposed to preserving traditional marriage.” 
 
 Brown predicted that the General Mills position “will go down as one of the dumbest corporate PR stunts of all time. It’s ludicrous for a big corporation to intentionally inject themselves into a divisive social issue like gay marriage. It’s particularly dumb for a corporation that makes billions selling cereal to the very people they just opposed.” 
 
 In a sign of how tough Brown’s pitch has become, his group had asked Minnesota companies only to remain neutral on the issue. 
 
 General Mills is frequently praised for its worker friendly policies. Ken Charles, the company’s vice president of global diversity and inclusion, wrote on the company’s blog Thursday, “Obviously, there are strongly held views on both sides. We acknowledge those views, including those on religious grounds. We respect and defend the right of others to disagree. But we truly value diversity and inclusion — and that makes our choice clear.” 
 
 Same-sex marriage opponents are currently boycotting coffee titan Starbucks, based in Seattle, because Starbucks opposes a similar amendment also on the ballot in Washington state. A “Thank You Starbucks” web campaign has received 650,109 signers, while the National Organization for Marriage’s “Dump Starbucks” campaign has gotten 44,387 supporters. ||||| General Mills is taking a stand against a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, becoming the most prominent corporate voice making such a public declaration. 
 
 Chief executive Ken Powell voiced the company's opposition Wednesday at a General Mills function attended by 400 gay and lesbian professionals, followed Thursday by a Web letter from the company's vice president for global diversity and inclusion, Ken Charles. 
 
 "We do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy," Charles wrote. "We value diversity. We value inclusion." 
 
 Taking a corporate position on such a politically charged issue as gay marriage is a risky move for a big company like Golden Valley-based General Mills, with such well known brands as Cheerios and Yoplait. 
 
 Yet companies nationwide are increasingly taking pro-gay marriage stances and going public on other political issues, marketing and public relations experts say. 
 
 Heather LaMarre, a professor in the University of Minnesota's School of Journalism, said that historically companies have followed a "don't-speak-unless-you-have-to" strategy when it comes to controversial political issues. "But we're in a new public relations mode." 
 
 General Mills is the second major Minnesota-based company to come out against the amendment, which will be on the November ballot. Medical device maker St. Jude Medical first expressed opposition, as have Carlson Chairwoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson, former Medtronic CEO Bill George and longtime Minneapolis businessman and politician Wheelock Whitney. 
 
 At the same time, the National Organization for Marriage, a key group supporting the marriage amendment, sent letters to 50 of the state's largest companies, urging them to remain neutral on the measure. On its website Thursday, the group, which is boycotting Starbucks for its gay marriage stance, blasted General Mills for declaring "war on marriage." 
 
 John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, the group pushing the amendment, said he was also very disappointed. 
 
 "Marriage is in the interest of children, because it is society's best way to help children experience the ideal environment where they are raised by their mother and father," Helmberger said. "It's ironic and regrettable that a corporation that makes billions marketing cereal to parents of children would take the position that marriage should be redefined." 
 
 The lead group fighting the amendment praised General Mills' decision. "The business case against this amendment is straightforward and powerful," said Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families. 
 
 General Mills declined to make Powell available for comment. A spokeswoman said the company doesn't normally contribute financially to ballot-measure campaigns, but General Mills declined to say whether or not it has specifically made contributions to defeat the marriage amendment. 
 
 General Mills' Charles wrote that "obviously, there are strongly held views on both sides. We acknowledge those views, including those on religious grounds," he said. "We respect and defend the right of others to disagree. But we truly value diversity and inclusion - and that makes our choice clear." 
 
 Companies speak 
 
 While North Carolina-based corporations were largely silent on that state's recently passed amendment banning gay marriage, companies have otherwise been increasingly vocal against such bans, said Fred Sainz, a vice president at the Human Rights Campaign, a large gay rights group. 
 
 Almost 50 companies including Nike, Xerox and Time Warner Cable, signed a court briefing against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying it hampered their businesses. The law, which limits marriage to a union between a man and woman, was deemed unconstitutional this month by a federal appeals court. 
 
 Last year, two dozen top executives in New York, including the heads of Goldman Sachs and media giant Viacom, came out in favor of an effort in that state to approve same-sex marriage. Starbucks, Amazon, Microsoft and Boeing did likewise in Washington state regarding a same-sex marriage bill there. 
 
 Social media have helped change the environment, with consumers and employees putting pressure on companies via the Web, forcing them to take more public stands, said LeMarre, a specialist in political public relations. The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which lifted the ban on corporate campaign spending, has played a role, too. 
 
 Still, LaMarre said such moves can be "very risky from a public relations standpoint" -- particularly for consumer products companies. General Mills has long had a commitment to equality for its gay workers and is located in a gay-friendly metro area, both of which help it attract the best and brightest from a global employment market, LaMarre said. ||||| The employee accused of writing a slur in a cake is a member of the LGBT community, according to Whole Foods. 
 
 An Austin pastor is suing Whole Foods, alleging that the store sold him a cake with an anti-gay slur. 
 
 The pastor had asked a Whole Foods employee to add the words “Love Wins” in icing to a cake. 
 
 An Austin pastor is suing Whole Foods alleging that a bakery employee gave him a cake with an anti-gay slur written on it. 
 
 Church of Open Doors Pastor Jordan Brown said he planned to surprise his congregation members on Thursday with a cake. As he had done several times in the past, Brown said, he went to the Whole Foods flagship store on North Lamar Boulevard, approached the bakery counter and picked a blank, pre-frosted cake from the display case. 
 
 This time, he asked the bakery associate to write the words “Love Wins” with icing on the cake and waited until the employee handed him a box sealed with the store’s sticker, Brown said. 
 
 “I didn’t tell her anything about me being gay,” he said. 
 
 He paid for it, walked out the store and set the cake on the floor of the passenger seat side of his car before leaving. He didn’t look inside the box until he stopped at a stop light on Fifth Street and North Lamar Boulevard and saw the cake had the message: “Love Wins Fag” written on it, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 + Pastor Jordan Brown takes a moment to compose himself as he is overcome with emotion during a press conference as he ... read more × 
 
 Brown is openly gay and is the founder of Church of Open Doors, a non-denominational Christian and LGBT-welcoming church in Southeast Austin. The message brought back memories of being bullied and humiliated over his sexual orientation, Brown said. 
 
 “This has been extremely offensive and humiliating,” he said. 
 
 Later that day, Brown spoke with a store employee about the incident, the lawsuit said. The employee eventually told him he had concluded the store had not done anything wrong, according to the lawsuit. 
 
 + Attorney Austin Kaplan holds a picture of a cake from Whole Foods. RICARDO B. BRAZZIELL/AMERICAN-STATESMAN × 
 
 Brown’s attorney Austin Kaplan said they filed a lawsuit at the Travis County District court Monday after several days of unsuccessful attempts to reach the Whole Foods corporate and legal offices. 
 
 “It’s all the more frustrating and disappointing for this to happen with a company that professes to have the kind of values of inclusion, equality and tolerance that we share,” Kaplan said. “This cake contained a slur directed at the LGBT community, but the next could contain slurs directed at different races, religions, or national origins.” 
 
 Whole Foods issued a statement Monday saying: “Our team member wrote “Love Wins” at the top of the cake as requested by the guest, and that’s exactly how the cake was packaged and sold at the store. Our team members do not accept or design bakery orders that include language or images that are offensive. Whole Foods Market has a zero tolerance policy for discrimination. We stand behind our bakery team member, who is part of the LGBTQ community, and the additional team members from the store, who confirmed the cake was decorated with only the message “Love Wins.” 
 
 In the lawsuit, Brown is requesting a jury trial and is seeking unspecified damages and monetary relief for mental anguish, court costs and other expenses. 
 
 “I’m horrified that this has happened and I’m hopeful that through my actions I can protect others in the Austin LGBT community,” he said.
– If you've "liked" a company on Facebook, downloaded its coupons, or really in any way interacted with it online, you might have inadvertently given up your right to sue it. The New York Times spotted new language in the privacy policy on General Mills' website indicating that customers who did any of those things were agreeing to settle any disputes they might have with the company via arbitration. When the Times asked about it, the company doubled down, adding new text suggesting that anyone who so much as purchased Cheerios was agreeing to the same thing. (A new gray bar atop the site reads in part, "Please note we also have new Legal Terms which require all disputes related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service to be resolved through binding arbitration.") The Supreme Court opened the door for this maneuver when it ruled, in 2011's AT&T v. Concepcion, that companies could forbid class-action lawsuits in the contracts their customers sign, and many companies are moving to take advantage. "Although this is the first case I’ve seen of a food company moving in this direction, others will follow—why wouldn’t you?" said a rep from a trial lawyers trade group. "It's essentially trying to protect the company from all accountability." General Mills defends the practice as simply an "efficient way to resolve disputes." Geek-O-System has a detailed breakdown of the policy language.