Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW June Newsletter: Forcing Business Behavior Changes Through Buried Contract Provisions: Salesforce and Camping World

As reported by The Washington Post, business-software giant Salesforce recently instituted a policy barring its retailer customers from using its technology to sell semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15 used in numerous mass shootings. One such customer is Camping World, whose Gander Outdoors division sells many "AR" and other semi-automatic rifles

Rather than approach Camping World/Gander, a "leading" Salesforce customer, and negotiating the termination of their semi-automatic rifle sales in exchange for some benefit (such as a software discount), Salesforce was tricky. They buried a provision barring the sale of semi-automatic rifles in the acceptable-use policy ("AUP") binding on Camping World/Gander:
Salesforce wants to force Camping World/Gander to make a major change to its business model via an addition to their AUP that is irrelevant to their customer's licensed use of Salesforce software. And although sneaky, I bet that the Salesforce master software license agreement contains the customer's promise to follow their AUP "as Salesforce may amend it from time to time." Which brings us to the question of why Camping World/Gander is continuing to sell semi-automatic weapons to this day, apparently in violation of the Salesforce AUP. (Hey Salesforce and Camping World executives out there, what's the deal?) Doesn't Salesforce worry that if they don't enforce this provision in their AUP, they may be estopped from enforcing it in the future? I'd certainly worry about that!

The tactic of forcing business behavior changes (arguably for the greater good) through buried contract provisions is worth considering. To a large extent, Salesforce is acting to ban assault rifles because Congress and the courts have failed to do so, thanks to the Second Amendment. (Could the Founding Fathers have foreseen the ruthless killing efficiency of a semi-automatic rifle  - or that just about any goofball can buy one?) As a tool to effect a noble purpose, I admire Salesforce's creative contracting.  

But what I can't get over is Salesforce using its considerable business leverage on a valued customer to change their business model without prior discussions. And doing it with a "fine print" mandatory - and arguably irrelevant - contract provision (rising to the level of a "gotcha") is repugnant to me. That's not how reasonable persons should conduct business. 

Are you game for the Salesforce approach to banning semi-automatic rifles (and the other nasties listed in their AUP)? Or (regardless of your feelings about the Second Amendment), do your sympathies lie with Camping World? Reasonable minds may differ! 

If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is and my website is And my email address is Thanks!


Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW April Newsletter: Pulling Apart the Purchase Agreement for the ICON A5: "The Jet Ski with Wings"

The ICON A5 is an amphibious "light-sport aircraft" that is marketed primarily to adventurous amateur pilots with deep pockets (and spacious home garages in which to store their ICONs). The plane has a recreational focus; it can seat only two, has limited load capacity, and isn't intended to go very far. The cost of the plane was $139K when first introduced in 2006 but is now $389K for a "fully-loaded version."

YouTube is full of videos showing how much fun you can have with an ICON A5 (especially with water landings and take-offs), bringing to mind the "jet ski with wings" analogy. So the ICON A5 is perhaps the ultimate high-tech, outdoor adult toy (unless you're afraid of heights). There have been several fatalities with the A5, but these apparently resulted from pilot error in one case and reckless flying in another rather than from mechanical defects or design flaws. 

The ICON A5 Purchase Agreement (including the Operating Agreement as Exhibit B…

A BUSKLAW Newsletter Aside: We Speak Information Technology Law

When I describe my legal specialty as information technology ("IT"), the common response (along with a puzzled look) is, "what does that mean?"

Short answer: "It means a lot." 

Because there isn't a business in existence that isn't affected by something IT related. Does your firm have a website that collects personal information? Then you should have terms of use (and a cookie policy) that comply with state and federal laws, regulations, and the GDPR. Do you sell things on your website and accept credit cards as payment? Then you must institute payment card industry data security standards to protect that credit card data from hackers. And you also must have credit card agreements with your card companies and processing bank that contain indemnity and other "bet your business" obligations. In my experience, credit card agreements are notoriously one-sided and chock full of legal jargon. Have you read yours?  

Apart from those considerations…

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: "Here's Another Clue for You All, the Walrus Was..."

To continue the title: Paul. As in Sir Paul McCartney. But in 1969, there was a problem: several radio stations broadcast a conspiracy theory: Paul died in a car crash in 1966. And the remaining Beatles covered it up and replaced the dead Paul with an (apparently equally-talented) imposter. Fans began scouring Beatles songs for evidence of the ruse; they pointed to "The walrus was Paul" line from the song White Onion, concluding that "walrus" was the Greek word for corpse (it isn't). in reality, John Lennon was messing with fans' propensity to find meaning to those lyrics when there was none. In an interview for what later became the Beatles Anthology television documentary, John said: 

I threw the line in—"the Walrus was Paul"—just to confuse everybody a bit more. It could have been "The fox terrier is Paul." I mean, it's just a bit of poetry. I was having a laugh because there'd been so much gobbledygook about Pepper—play it bac…