- cross-posted to:
- weirdnews@real.lemmy.fan
- cross-posted to:
- weirdnews@real.lemmy.fan
Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.
It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
They’ve definitely crunched the numbers and figured out this method is cheaper than a settlement, and in a country like the US, they’ll definitely get away with it.
No numbers…they would easily spend 4x as much to defend their arbitration bullshit then actually pay out the guys demands.
It’s a dick waving contest and Disney wants the world to see their dick. Nothing more.
I just see them as dicks now. Well… more then before that is.
Apparently the same clause is in the Disney account terms used to buy the tickets to the park
Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.
Which would hold more water than the clause in the Disney+ terms (that articles on the subject focus on way too much just for clickbait)
Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chambers, says the terms in the Disney+ trial are a “weak argument for Disney to rely on”.
However, he says, the clause in the ticket purchase from 2023 may be a stronger case, “as there is a similar arbitration clause”.
But anyway, it’s really insensitive from Disney to try to arbitrate such a tragic incident.
used to buy the tickets to the park
the restaurant was not in a ticketed park, it was in Disney Springs which is a freely accessible public area
Oh, I wasn’t aware of this since the BBC article does not mention it. Then Disney’s attempt to arbitrate based on the account terms barely holds water.
It should be illegal to waive your right to go court.
I think it is in most places
It definitely should be illegal as a term for using a product or service. At the absolute minimum we should ban non-mutual arbitration clauses and these bullshit “for any dispute” clauses.
Everything about this is awful, forced arbitration in consumer terms of service are a pox on justice.
So… Those are not different legal entities? Usually those things are split up 100 different ways.
I’m sure it depends on which is more convenient for Disney at any given time.
Removed by mod
Piracy is safer, more cost efficient, privacy respecting, and more versatile when consuming media across multiple devices.
We have come a long way, folks. The dystopia is here and it’s going strong, but we shouldn’t let it strike us down.
Please consider piracy for your own good! ❤️
It’s insane to me that they would try to pull this shit and then try to sell us on the evils of piracy.
Disney should be broken up
This is why we break up large companies.
Damn it Jim, people are starting to think we’re actually good, we need to shown them that we dont care about them, they’re just money, how could we completely fuck over our customers while making them thank us for the privilege…
people are starting to think we’re actually good
Are they?
Them fighting Desantis made people like them a bit, but they were just being an evil dick to a just as evil dick that we hated, the old the enemy of my enemy is my friend situation.
fighting Desantis
Sounds like a local American matter. I hadn’t even heard of this and it certainly wouldn’t change my view of Disney at all.
I was curious. Looks like Florida has about the same population as Sri Lanka. Similar to Romania for the EU folks. While I could find them both on a map I couldn’t tell you anything going on their. Much less news from a year ago.
Maybe its fair to bump the populations some because Desantis was a Republican presidential hopeful. But I couldn’t tell you the names of the folks who lost the last Tory leadership election.
So, yeah, comment checks out.
In general, those arbitration clauses should be made illegal.
This might be a good impetus to make that happen.
This is sickening.
Don’t they have notifications in their restaurants warning people about allergens? Also, it is cheaper to pay the guy the $50k he wants so long as he signs a doc that says Disney is not at fault. This is so strange (and terrible).
The claim is that the victim repeatedly informed the waiter about her allergy needs and checked more than once whether her order could be prepared safely in accordance with her needs, the waiter repeatedly told her it was prepared accordingly, and it was not.
Restaurants are absolutely capable of allergen free food prep and telling customers which foods cannot be safely prepared. Disney is absolutely at fault.
Fine, but it is just weird they didn’t have a notification in their restaurant regarding allergens and aren’t just paying him the requested settlement - like this is the strangest, most expensive path they could have taken.
A notice isn’t relevant. It doesn’t remove their liability.
And he absolutely definitely shouldn’t take a settlement that requires absolving them of wrongdoing.
I really want to imagine that any judge reading this argument will just lower their glasses slightly and look at Disney lawyers with a “bitch, really?” look.
That won’t happen, at least not in the USA, but it’s nice to imagine…
Hello Monopoly
Disney using the Lightning Lane to infamy.
He should get the dragon balls and wish his wife back
I was looking for this comment. o7
