I recently picked up a pasta pot from Gotham Steel on the Flip app, mostly because I liked the convenience factor. My kids go through a lot of pasta, and this pot has a built-in straining lid that locks in place with a couple of twistable dials. No need for a separate colander, which means fewer dishes for me to wash. Sounded like a win.
But when I opened the box, I found something unexpected: an arbitration “agreement.” It wasn’t buried in fine print either—it was front and center, making it clear that by using the pot, I was giving up my right to sue the company. If I got injured or had any kind of problem that might lead to legal action, I’d be required to go through binding arbitration. That means no judge, no jury, and no chance to join a class action suit.
I didn’t see any obvious way to opt out of it, either. Sure, I could return the pot to Flip, but there didn’t seem to be any way to just reject the agreement and still keep the product. And from what I could tell, simply using the pot amounts to accepting those terms. It should be noted that the arbitration requirement is not visible until the product is unpackaged as the agreement was resting inside the pot. Additionally there were no mentions of this arbitration requirement on the Flip product page prior to sale.
Naturally, I started digging to understand why a pasta pot would come with this kind of legal baggage. Turns out Gotham Steel was the target of a class action lawsuit a few years ago. Customers alleged that their non-stick cookware didn’t live up to the marketing, and while I don’t know how much the company had to pay out, it seems to have been enough to prompt this arbitration requirement. Now, instead of addressing future customer grievances in court, they’re steering everyone into arbitration from the start.
I’ve never come across something this blatant in kitchenware before. Maybe other companies have similar clauses tucked away in their manuals, but this was right there when I opened the box. It raises the question of how many more every day consumer products are starting to do this, and what it means for consumers in the long run.
I’m curious what people with legal backgrounds make of this kind of clause—whether it’s enforceable or just intimidation. Either way, it’s a small but telling example of how consumer rights seem to keep getting chipped away, even when we’re just trying to make a pot of pasta.