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.

  • _bcron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    28 days ago

    You and Disney agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes (including any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates)

    I have a hard time believing Disney could convince anyone that a death from a food allergy is even tangentially related to a streaming subscription. Probably one of those bad faith efforts to drag it out and incur huge fees for the plaintiff in hopes of settling

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      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.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

    • BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

    • smegOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      27 days ago

      I think it is in most places

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

  • breakingcups@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    28 days ago

    Everything about this is awful, forced arbitration in consumer terms of service are a pox on justice.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      I am sure contract was drafted in a way that makes it government your relationship with god while Disney has zero responsibility for anything

      They early been getting away with this for decades. Courts are captured and won’t enforce basic contract law anymore.

      Fuck u slave, corpos own you and courts will let them fuck you with impunity.

  • vegaquake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    27 days ago

    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! ❤️

  • dumbass@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    27 days ago

    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…

      • dumbass@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        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.

        • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          27 days ago

          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.

          • nik9000@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            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.

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    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).

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

      • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          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.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    27 days ago

    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…