1901
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blargerer@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 4 months ago

This case has awful optics but it isn't as insane as it is presented here. First, it's just resolving things by arbitration not dismissing the suit completely. Second, Disney didn't own the restaurant in question, it was on their property, and they promoted it on their website. Its reasonable that an arbitration agreement for something like disney+ could be extended to the use of their website.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 70 points 4 months ago

Binding arbitration is terrible for consumers:

“This is not like having judges, who get paid the same no matter what happens,” says Stanford Graduate School of Business finance professor Amit Seru, who collaborated on the study with Mark Egan at Harvard Business School and Gregor Matvos at the University of Texas at Austin. “Here, you only get paid if you’re selected as an arbitrator. They have incentives to slant toward the business side, because they know that those who don’t do so won’t get picked. Everyone knows what’s happening.”

[-] sanpo@sopuli.xyz 55 points 4 months ago

No, it is insane. I don't know of other countries that allow a corporation to just not allow you to sue them and force you into arbitration.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

It is as insane as it sounds. Yes, alternative dispute resolution is perfectly commonplace and indeed in many countries - such as mine - there is an expectation that you attempt ADR before bringing a matter to court, unless there is some reason why you couldn't.

That's fine. That's not an issue.

Disney claimed that due to the terms and conditions of the Disney+ video streaming service, anyone who has or had a subscription agrees to resolve any and all disputes with Disney through mediation and they therefore waive any recourse through the courts. For absolutely any form of dispute, even a wrongful death.

That is absolutely insane and evil to even attempt and there is no justifying it.

[-] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

it isn't as insane as it is presented here

Arbitration aside, I think you're forgetting these are terms from the streaming service.

If tomorrow I attack you, break your spine and you lose mobility for life, then I come back saying in 2011 you purchased an indie game I made and waived your right to sue me in the terms of service, that wouldn't be insane? Suuure.

[-] Imacat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They also agreed to a similar arbitration clause again when purchasing the park tickets. It is insane that the disney lawyers even mentioned disney+. They had a more recent and relevant agreement right there.

Either way, I hope they lose. Fuck disney and forced arbitration.

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The restaurant in question wasn't located in the park, so that clause was just as irrelevant.

[-] Imacat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

Agreed but it isn’t as much a stretch as the disney+ agreement and serves the same purpose for their argument. The restaurant is on disney owned property right next to the park.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
1901 points (100.0% liked)

memes

10689 readers
1857 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS