Arbitration clause for wrongful death?
Permanently Deleted
By no means do I agree with forced arbitration, but so many articles are reporting this partially.
They also agreed to the same clause when buying the tickets in 2023. It’s not just the streaming service ToS in play. Sure gets a lot of clicks saying it like it was though.
Again I think this is all horseshit and forced arbitration can get fucked, but it’s not being reported properly. The Disney+ trial could have not happened at all and the argument from Disney wouldn’t change.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.
Believe or not, in today's america... Yes
In yesterday's America too. Look at the Battle of Blair Mountain for instance where corporations have run the show for centuries.
Does anyone have a TL;DW? Cause I just smashed the transcript into DuckDuckGo AI Chat on GPT-4o and asked it to summarise it and it came up with this
In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron's ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like "purchase" to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.
Which isn't helping enough
Disney lawyers are using an arbitration clause in their Disney account agreement to try to dismiss a lawsuit over a death caused by allergies at Raglan Road. You should be able to find the articles from there.
It's a bit simplistic to say that it's specifically a Disney+ issues.
To summarize differently, their argument goes that if you signed up for a trial of Disney+ (or some other such service), you agreed to an arbitration clause as part of the terms of service.
They are arguing that the arbitration clause therefore applies to everything Disney-related, even if it's a service unrelated to Disney+.
I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny and will likely get tossed as unenforceable for being an unconscionable contract. Still, Disney sucks for even attempting such a maneuver, and it equally sucks that the US legal system is in such a state that they think this is a possible avenue for success.
Except Disney lawyers actually cited the clause the in the Disney+ subscription.
Yes, there's more, but they actually cited Disney+.
I really can't emphasize that enough.
Guy dies in Disneyland. Family sues. Disney lawyers say he can't sue since guy-that-died had subscribed to Disney+ before and agreed to the terms of service. The terms of service he probably scrolled by when he registered say "you can't sue us". That was the most recent move I've heard.
That's an insane oversimplification of the proceedings but it appears like it's gonna come down to this clause. The clause that the user signs upon registering to Disney+ is a binding arbitration clause. You can read more about that here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mandatory-binding-arbitration.asp
Basically says you waive your right to sue us. Ianal btw. Also Discord has this same clause in their terms of service.
The clause that the user signs upon registering to Disney+ is a binding arbitration clause.
Disney is taking it waaaay further than anyone else by saying a free trial to D+ means any legal interaction with Disney goes to arbitration, not just for D+.
Arbitration clauses in EULAs are bullshit anyway, but if this isn't thrown out of court in a way that kills the concept of being able to sue for damages when every business adds this clause.
The video is 2 part, first is the summary of the case and another is about why this argument from Disney is the biggest pro piracy argument.
Basically, the case is about a doctor who had a food allergy and went to a Disney owned restaurant that promised to cater to people with food allergies. The doctor asked staff 5 times to make sure they were aware of her allergies, and all 5 times they said yes. It's literally the most straightforward wrongful death case ever. But then Disney decided they want to fuck more people over, so they made an argument that the case should tossed and move to arbitration because her husband signed up to Disney streaming service on a free trial, years ago. And Disney is ignoring a lot of other facts, like that husband is not the one suing, her estate is, he cancelled the trial before the period ended, so he wasn't even a subscriber at the time. The streaming site has an arbitration clause, but Disney park doesn't so it doesn't even matter. If the case can't go forward, it will be only because US is a corporate-owned shithole, legally it's a moot argument.
As far as piracy, it just highlights how fucked up everything is since if the husband just pirated, DIsney couldn't have used that argument in court. So Disney created a situation now that if you want to be able to sue them for your loved one's death - pirate Disney. It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.
In an attempt to weasel out of the liability for the woman's death Disney's lawyers pulled out the forced arbitration clause of the widower's Disney+ subscription.
Meaning they're effectively arguing that because he gives them money to use their service they should be allowed to get away with murder or at least criminal negligence.
I don't think they've realised yet, what a foot-gun this argument is. On top of the obvious moral issues with this line of argument. I mean, this has "give us your firstborn" vibes.Assuming I read that right, and assuming that's right: Person bought Disney+. Clicked accept in the EULA when they did. Was served food that gave them allergic reaction. Binding arbitration agreement basically means their case against Disney was tried by Disney employees instead of in court. If they pirated content instead of paying, they never would have accepted the EULA, and they would have gotten to sue Disney in a real court.
I gotchu fam.
Disney big boy, doing bad boy stuff. Oopsy killed someone but says it's ok, might get away with it.
Buying stuff now is all a service, go old school and buy paper books and pirate digital stuff. If the person who died at Disney had been a pirate, then Disney would be NOT OK MURDERER.
