- 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 register to comment.
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.
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
Agree 100%
But why weren’t all Americans up on the fences against such conditions during recent years?
As an American there are several factors that weigh in situations like this:
- Legal language is a foreign and difficult language to grasp and understand. That’s why lawyers go to school for as long as they do. Yet, citizens are expected to understand it as if it were plain English. So a lot of us don’t read or understand what we’re agreeing to; especially when it’s 10-s of pages long.
- Out of sight and out of mind. Unless it happens to us personally, there really is no incentive for us to do anything about it. It’s as, I know, but we’ve been cultivated as a culture with its head in the sand. Hell, even our constitutional right to peaceful protest has been all but stripped away from us.
- Financial barriers. It is expensive to fight legal battles, most especially against huge corporations like Disney. A lot of lawyers demand a lot of money up front, and getting our day in court to take years. Corporations can afford to stall. Is plebs can barely afford the initial consult. So unless it’s something considered “in the bag”, it’s probably not financially feasible.
But why weren’t all Americans up on the fences against such conditions during recent years?
You’re talking about a state that openly supports genocide. I don’t think people are paying much attention to anything.
There was a big push a few months ago, a year ago, who knows, Internet time is weird, when McDonald’s updated their terms of service on their app and added a clause like this. There were a lot of posts on social media, Reddit, fedi, etc to make sure people didn’t agree to the new terms or download the app if they never had it.
There are people that pay attention to it, and even research papers done on it. A lot of the common apps started doing it at the same time. Venmo has it, Pinterest, Facebook, etc. things you wouldn’t think of that would have cases like this. But certain ones stick out because of the seemingly more real world complications (I mean, venmo could have fraud, Facebook could have cyber bullying, etc), but McDonald’s could have health issues, Disney clearly this is the case.
shit, many people have their business and income tried to Facebook now. Facebook is constantly getting sued by small businesses after random stupid bullshit that takes them offline for a week.
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/
Pirate everything, then you don’t have to sign any TOS
taps head
Best ad for piracy in a while. It not only lets you consume media how ever you’d like it also preserves your ability to be compensated for damages.
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.
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.
Not that I’m condoning piracy,
We should all condone
piracysharing.I condone piracy, and you should too.
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!
There’s no way a judge is gonna allow this. Outrageous. The language is way out of scope.
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.
Between that and the Florida judge I’m a bit worried. Fuck forced arbitration.
Ironically, the saving grace here might be Florida and Disney hating each other so much. Maybe… Silver linings and such.
Florida hates Disney because of how much power they have over the state. Daddy Disney is going to punish Florida so much harder if they let one of their little judges let this through. 100% going to arbitration.
Disney: “You stepped on a crack, were legally allowed to break your mamma’s back.”
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.
they already kind of do over here. this case is going to set precedent for how broadly enforceable that are.
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…
Back in high school I performed in the chorus at a Christmas concert at Disney World. Prior to doing it, I had to sign away my right to my image and voice “in perpetuity and throughout the universe.”
Now I’m wondering if that all still applies and taking selfies means I could get sued by Disney.
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.)
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.
And certainly not binding arbitration.
Arbitration isn’t inherently bad, but any arbitration clause in any unilateral contract should automatically be void.
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 ?
Their leadership should be broken up into smaller pieces.
With a sharp falling object of French design?
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.
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?
“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.
Hopefully the judge is overwhelmed by disgust from a movement like this, since binding arbitration has only served as a means to deny consumers access to judicial remedies. It should never have been an option in the first place.
Curiously, the whole point of having justice and arbitration systems is to prevent parties from resorting to violence for vengeance. It’s why, in the four boxes of freedom, the ammunition box follows the jury box.
Even if he did, the SCOTUS precedents lean heavily in favor of forced arbitration. Which will likely be Christian as well because they use a flavor of Christianity that believes the wealthy are blessed by God and the poor are poor because they’re not good Christians. Almost like forced arbitration was a ruse from the word go.
