In April 2014, the media ignited a firestorm of controversy over
General Mills' decision to modify its online Privacy Policy and
Legal Terms to include a mandatory arbitration provision. The
proviso required consumers who downloaded or printed coupons,
"joined an online community," subscribed to an e-mail
newsletter, redeemed a promotion, or participated in any
"offering" to forego their right to sue the company in
court and instead submit to private, binding arbitration to resolve
any disputes with the company. In the face of the outcry over this
policy change, the company reversed course and restored its prior
legal terms, which contained no mention of arbitration.
The media's vilification of the policy change once again brings
to the forefront the tension and competing interests between class
action litigation and the freedom to contract to arbitrate. This
tension has existed since the Federal Arbitration Act was enacted
in 1925 and, much to the chagrin of class
