838
Disney gives up on trying to use Disney Plus excuse to settle a wrongful death lawsuit (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Disney tried to force the case into arbitration by citing the agreement on the widower’s Disney Plus trial account.

Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial.

“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” chairman of Disney experiences Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ptz@dubvee.org 272 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Sounds to me like they just want to keep that umbrella waiver in the Disney+ agreement rather than have that, rightly, struck down in court. They are very much still working under the assumption that a subscriber clicking "I Agree" to watch The Mandalorian waives any right to trial against any business unit of Disney Corp for any reason.

Absolutely despicable.

[-] Rooki@lemmy.world 98 points 2 months ago

You agreed to Disneys TOS

Assassins from Disney licking their fingers because they can legally kill you /j

Its the dumbest death you can have in an amusement park, dying because the restaurant didnt labeled their allergies right and that the corporation tries to dismiss it because of an DIGITIAL contract that was made for a digital service.

But this is the bs that you got by applying law so freely.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 57 points 2 months ago

Yep, exactly.

They're asserting and graciously waiving a "right" they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago

Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I'm waiving my right to steal from Disney.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago

An umbrella arbitration clause like this, if it were argued at court, surely would only be held up for cases related to Disney+. At least one would hope. Having such an agreement cover entirely separate arms of a company is ridiculous.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 60 points 2 months ago

Arbitration contracts, especially in click-through licenses, are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Arbitration contracts ~~especially in click-through licenses~~ are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

There should be no reason why a corporation ahould be able to avoid the justice system for any reason.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 14 points 2 months ago

I could see very specific cases where arbitration makes sense with a very well defined scope. "Parties agree that disputes over widget quality related to this agreement are to be adjudicated by the Widget Quality Counsel". The courts are not always the best arbiters for every dispute.

However, what we have now is every corporation finding ways to slide arbitration clauses of global scope into every transaction. That is always bullshit.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.

[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

All unilateral contracts where one side holds all the cards and can arbitrarily dictate or even alter previously agreed to terms should be held to the strictest standards. This includes employment agreements, terms of service, license agreements and so on.

Contracts between equals can be more permissive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah, imo they got worried that people would start asking government agencies to make legislation about things like this, so theyd rather backtrack now so they can keep it as part of their TOS.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

There was a heavily implied “THIS TIME” at the end of that statement.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 220 points 2 months ago

"We got caught by the public, and we want to keep this excuse possible in the future. So we're dropping it from now so the court doesn't set a legal precedent that will fuck us over."

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 132 points 2 months ago

I fucking hate Disney.

With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach

Yeah if they possessed sensitivity they would've never tried this. The only reason they changed their mind is public backlash which would've been obvious to foresee.

So they're myopic and insensitive. Also just cruel. It doesn't matter in the slightest if they could've gotten away with this. It's straight evil to try it.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago

They said they decided to waive their right to arbitration. They still think that's their right, fucking sickening.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago

I think they put it that way because they want to signal how powerful they are while pretending to be ethical

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Exactly, i thought of this as a tapping of the holstered guns they're openly wearing

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 56 points 2 months ago

I'd say actually the only reason they backed down is because they realized they were going to lose and didn't want to risk their arbitration clause getting struck down in a court.

[-] KingBoo@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

This was exactly it.

They'll wait for a case they can win for sure and let court precedent destroy their customers following.

If the reversed happened, it would be a massive win for consumers. The mouse can't allow that.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Yeah, maybe. It definitely wasn't for a selfless reason

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

That made me so angry!

When this story first came up, an Ars Technica commenter explained that the only thing to do in this scenario is to grieve with the widow, and that it was a ludicrous fight to have. It's pretty bad for Disney to pretend like they agree with that viewpoint after already putting the widow through more distress.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 116 points 2 months ago

we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration

That's legalese for "We still think that we have that right, we will use it again".

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 54 points 2 months ago

That's legalese for "We still think that we have that right, we will use it again".

Or for "we don't want this to get invalidated in court - we need to save it so we can intimidate someone else in the future".

[-] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn't have everyone so riled up and hating us."

[-] Bojimbo@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.

[-] Toneswirly@lemmy.world 83 points 2 months ago

"We've decided" lol. Keep telling yourselves that

[-] CM400@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

“Right to arbitration”

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 77 points 2 months ago

lol they still think they have the right to arbitration.

[-] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They could settle out of cout for an amount that they could earn back in under a week. Now they wanna go to court where they'll end up paying more. Get fucked Disney

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 55 points 2 months ago

we’ve decided to waive our right

"we are not wrong, fuck you"

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 2 months ago

I'm just confused how anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Surely the strong public backlash could have been easily anticipated.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

Most of the time, nobody notices.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

Most of the time it's not as egregious as trying to use a free trial for streaming to force arbitration for wrongful death at an amusement park. I truly can't imagine any world where this doesn't blow up because it's so outrageous.

[-] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The world where the government is for the corporations not the people. We're getting very nearly there, with legal bribery and corporations being considered "people".

Sure the people might be outraged, but legally outage doesn't matter and the corporations have a huge power advantage over a single person.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Legal and PR are different departments.

[-] NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

Boycott Disney, the high seas exist if you need to get your fix

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Krzd@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

"unique circumstances" we got caught and too many people heard about it

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Too. Late.

[-] sartalon@feddit.nl 13 points 2 months ago

Jesus, this story made me feel so fucking gross. So fucking disgusting what they were trying to do.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't advocate the high seas.

But man, a TOS like this makes me glad I didn't watch Andor via Disney+. I certainly don't feel bad about it now.

And to the Disney legalbot, I watched it via a friend, of course.

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

The guy lost his wife. Fuck Disney for trying this shit.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

A disney SWAT team kicked down my door and scream-asked me at gunpoint if I'd seen the Mandalorian.

I hear it's been happening a lot.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

For a company that pushes so hard to have family friendly image, they had to pull this ridiculous stunt.

[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I wonder how these stupid attempts ever get pass these supposedly smart executives. You have to be pretty stupid to hold someone to a agreement that was over four years before. The idea that you are bound by a contract for a online service after you cancel it is absurd and downright stupid.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Disney: Guilty of murdering its resort guests as well as the entire Star Wars franchise.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

Fuck Disney!

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

The Verge - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Verge:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220228/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-subscription-terms
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224277/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-waiving-arbitration
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Remember that south park episode, The human cent-iPad. Yeah.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 2 months ago

I was thinking about the simpsons were marge is reading the letter that says by reading it allowed you waive all rights in perpetuity or something.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
838 points (100.0% liked)

News

23268 readers
2302 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world