General Mills, one of America’s largest food companies updated the legal terms on its website. The new terms provided that any dispute related to the purchase or use of any General Mills product or service would be resolved through binding arbitration. If consumers “liked” General Mills’ social media pages, downloaded coupons from its website, or entered any company-sponsored contests, they were agreeing to have any dispute with General Mills referred to arbitration and could not sue or join a class action. After a public outcry on social media, the company revised its position and sent an email stating that they were reverting to the old terms, which made no mention of binding arbitration. Why do you think the public was upset by a clause requiring disputes to be settled by binding arbitration? Would Canadian courts enforce General Mills rescinded legal terms?