- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/16155215
Disney has asked a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed earlier this year regarding a woman who passed away due to anaphylaxis after a meal at Disney Springs, citing an arbitration waiver in the terms and conditions for Disney+.
…
In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.
In the May 31 motion filed to move the wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, Disney attorneys said that the Disney+ subscriber agreement states that any dispute, except for small claims, “must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
…
Attorneys for Piccolo called Disney’s latest motion “preposterous,” and that it’s “‘absurd’ to believe that the 153 million subscribers to the popular streaming service have waived all claims against the company and its affiliates because of language ‘buried’ within the terms and conditions,” according to Newsday.
The notion that terns agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement.
Brian Denny, Piccolo’s West Palm Beach attorney in a filing on August 2, 2024
You must log in or # to comment.
This should be what finally starts the push to ban mandatory arbitration clauses.
Bring with it a big expansion in the number of federal judges. They already have an overloaded case schedule. The Supremes have made this worse in their ruling against Chevron Deference, as every regulation a corp doesn’t like can now be challenged. One of the reasons judges have let these clauses go through is because it relieves the case burden on them.
Something like quadrupling the size was justified even before Chevron went down or we talk about things that would bring even more cases.
This should be what finally starts the push to guillotine the upper management of Disney but I guess we’ve got to take whatever we can get.
I gotta say it’s refreshing to have a place to post where this kind of comment isn’t immediately deleted and the user IP banned like Reddit
My jaw dropped after the first paragraph. What the fuck is this?
Not an American… But holy crap… If Disney succeeds with this… then … E-v-e-r-y single service will have a clause like “you hereby agree to never ever take legal action against us, our subsidiaries, cookie partners, affiliates, our friend’s dog or Bob for anything we might or might not have caused in the next 2 billion years if we don’t give you permission.”.
I’m happy that I’m living in the European Union av and not in Florida.
Car TOCs here already include consent for any passenger…insane.
I believe that’s treated as a matter of common sense, that getting into a car comes with an understanding of the inherent risks. Cars also have a couple “risk of injury or death” stickers in them, under the visors or on the door.
Similar laws exist for horses, to protect horse owners from litigation when someone falls off a horse. I think you only need a single sign for indemnification.
To clarify, this isn’t comparable to the fucked up thing Disney is doing.
I believe that’s treated as a matter of common sense, that getting into a car comes with an understanding of the inherent risks.
Those inherent risks now include the manufacturer selling your sexual habits if you get in the car even if you never heard of that.
That’s already very common and should be shut down, but usually it applies to the particular service you are using… Not whatever this bullshit is…
they already kind of do over here. this case is going to set precedent for how broadly enforceable that are.
Disney: “You stepped on a crack, were legally allowed to break your mamma’s back.”
BananaMickey mouse republicThe notion that terns agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement.
Not that I’m condoning piracy, but pirates don’t have to deal with this crap. Just sayin’. This situation is basically the plot of the Cent-iPad episode of South Park, and hopefully the courts strike this “defense” down with prejudice.
And since the FTC found its teeth, maybe it should look at the behemoth that Disney has been allowed to become; they own way too many media properties.
I condone piracy, and you should too.
Not that I’m condoning piracy,
We should all condone
piracysharing.While I agree, where should it stop?
Just by getting into new cars you agree to their TOS. Buying a new phone, using internet services/websites, etc. You almost can’t breath without agreeing to one TOS or another. We need this shit to stop and local laws are the only way I see out of it.
At they very least, the TOSs need to be limited in scope to just the product or service specifically used by the customer. Having them be written or interpreted so broadly as to encompass anything the company does, in any business unit, should be unenforceable (and ideally illegal).
Sorry to hear you aren’t condoning piracy. Wish we could convince you to support us. In many ways we are the good guys. When was the last time you saw a pirate kill someone and send their family a hey fuck you notice?
Last week, but that asshole had it coming!
Given that Disney’s history with litigation and human rights is pretty vile, I am not terribly surprised by this.
This just has all the hallmarks of absurdist fuckery from the last 20 years.
-
Money is political speech
-
Your employer’s religious freedom trumps yours
-
Self defence was added to the second amendment in crayon
-
The evisceration of the Voting Rights Act
-
Prosecutors may enjoy immunity from lying in court
-
Standing doesn’t actually matter
-
Presidents may enjoy immunity for anything they do
(Anywhere it’s a may instead of shall, we all know it’s conservatives being protected. It doesn’t apply to democratic prosecutors and presidents)
So coming soon, eternal and universal Terms of Service. Which won’t become a dark phrase at all. Our employers will offer us everything from housing to food and we’ll accept it to keep from having to sign TOS with Kroger’s, a slum lord, Ford, Microsoft, and Netflix.
-
Forced Arbitration should absolutely be illegal. Here’s an article on the topic if you’ve never thought about it before:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3986551-the-time-to-ban-forced-arbitration-is-now/
Wow, just… wow. Can you be any more evil?
We really need to strike down this arbitration agreement nonsense. If I want to resolve a dispute by arbitration, that should be an option, but never a requirement.
It’s also a great example why these mega corps should be broken up into smaller pieces.
If forced arbitration persists (and this argumentation from Disney is successful and then used as precedence) any service used from one company can be used to forever ban you from taking legal action against that company again even if the service and the reason for the legal action have nothing to do with each other.
Am I right in understanding that this case is about someone dying from eating in a Disney owned restaurant that by accident was a Disney+ subscriber?
If one company owns everything like Amazon, Google, Apple and in the future maybe even water supply, garbage collection, operates my car and is my insurer or bank account (and owner of one of the 4 remaining fast food chains in the country) how can people actually sue a company then ?
Her HUSBAND signed the terms + conditions for a free 1 month trial. They’re claiming that he can’t sue for a wrongful death on her behalf because of THAT.
yeah that’s just ridiculous. omg
He signed up for the trial in 2019, he wasnt even a current subscriber.
Their leadership should be broken up into smaller pieces.
With a sharp falling object of French design?
Arbitration isn’t inherently bad, but any arbitration clause in any unilateral contract should automatically be void.
And certainly not binding arbitration.
By continuing to display Disney advertisements on my computer and within my field of vision after September 1st, 2024, Disney hereby waives all right to force binding arbitration just because someone signed up for a free trial.
(Oh and also brings jurisdiction to British Columbia, or anywhere there isn’t a sizeable portion of numbnut judgets who would entertain the stupid argument Disney is making.)
People always act surprised when I say I hate Disney. This type of shit is exactly why.
If this exact thing was a villain plot in a Disney film, it would be laughed as being unrealistically evil.
There are so many great reasons to hate on Disney. This one is so incredibly over the top.
I wonder if you could send Disney a huge pile of legal demands well in advance, say something like “By accepting me as a Disney+ customer, The Walt Disney Company Agrees to all terms herein”, then sign up for an account and just show up at Disney HQ and start running the place because they signed over executive control to you by letting you sign up.
Bring the lawyers in and mutiny the place. “The moment my account was activated, I became the legal CEO of The Walt Disney Company. Now get this Bob Iger fucker out of my goddamn office!”
You signed a newer agreement to arbitrate everything in Mickey Court, where a cast member in a Mickey Mouse suit slams a gavel and announces “Disney wins!” So no, not really.
Nah, the funniest part about all of this isn’t that their using the disney+ STREAMING TERMS OF SERVICE to get out of liability for murdering some poor lady by disregarding her repeated stated allergies, let’s say you can fit those mental gymnastics into your world view - what you can’t do, is use your DISNEY+ gift cards at FUCKING DISNEY LAND OR DISNEY WORLD.
because it’s all the same system, if the TOS for the streaming service APPLY AT THE FUCKING THEME PARK, that shit don’t make no sense.
And strangely the gift card thing has come up multiple times.
“Disney understandably may want to benefit from the privacy and confidentiality that arbitration brings, rather than having a wrongful death suit heard in public with the associated publicity,” says Jamie Cartwright, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.
– from the BBC article
If that’s what they want, they clearly never heard of the Streisand Effect. This is disgraceful behaviour from Disney, and I hope they come to severely regret it.
Narrator: they won’t.
