According to the New York Times, General Mills, the maker of brand names including Betty Crocker, Pillsbury and Cheerios, made some quiet changes to its privacy policy prohibiting customers who buy its products from suing the company if they have a dispute.

Essentially any interaction with the company including downloading coupons or "liking" the company on Facebok meant the consumer gave up their right to sue.

"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 company said.

Since the Times story ran, the company has received negative press surrounding its changes, which prompted it to reverse the controversial policy Saturday, Al Jazeera America reported.

General Mills issued a statement to Al Jazeera stating it was reversing the policy after the television network aired a segment regarding the issue.

"We've reverted back to our prior terms. There's no mention of arbitration, and the provisions we had posted were never enforced. Nor will they be," General Mills told Al Jazeera. "We're sorry we even started down this path ... And we do hope you'll accept our apology."

The policy would have required consumers, who had any legal complaints against General Mills after interacting with the company, to enter arbitration, according to Al Jazeera. On Thursday, General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas told the Times the policy "merely determine(d) a forum for pursuing a claim" but didn't mean consumers couldn't proceed with a claim. According to the Times, the initial change in the company's now-defunct policy came after California consumers filed a lawsuit against the company, and the judge refused to dismiss the case.

Julia Duncan, director of federal programs and arbitration expert at the American Association for Justice, told the Times that General Mills was one of the first major food companies that tried to impose "forced arbitration."

"Although this is the first case I've seen of a food company moving in this direction, other will follow. Why wouldn't you?" Duncan asked. "It's essentially trying to protect the company from all accountability, even when it lies, or say, an employee deliberately adds broken glass to a product."

As recently as 2011, several companies have also imposed similar polices on consumers. A Supreme Court ruling that year allowed businesses to forbid class-action lawsuits by using a standard-form contract, Al Jazeera reported.