- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I’ll be cancelling my Disney bundle subscription after this. I seriously hope they get billions from Disney after this. Nothing I hate more than companies trying to abuse arbitration clauses. No one in their right mind would think Disney+ subscription would impact their legal rights at a park. Now I know why Disney+/Hulu/etc moved to a MyDisney account. It was because of shenanigans like this where they wanted to try to make a contract that applies to every Disney property imaginable.
You might want to re-read that… This is saying they signed up for a 1-month free trial in 2019. It sounds like they haven’t even had a subscription for the last 5 years but the lawyers are still trying to argue that it applies.
Yes I know this. They include terms that automatically adapts all new agreements too. Even if 5 years ago they didn’t have as broad of a contract, businesses constantly update their terms to strengthen and expand stripping away consumer rights.
Sorry. You already entered into the contract. You signed. Anyway, I’m not here for the arbitration. I’m here for you puppy Max. In the contract, in fine letters, it clearly says that if you do happen to acquire a puppy via gift, birth or otherwise monetary exchange, Disney has the right to use said animal for the new Lion King the ride movie. So anyway, can we please take a look at the specimen? We got some invasive tests we’d like to run now.
Reminds me of the HUMANCENTiPAD
So, Disney+ gift cards carry no value at Disneyland, but the Disney+ death waiver does?
lol wut?
Wow. I bet their just trying to drag the case out until the guy can’t afford it. If something like this was successful none of us stand a chance against any company legally anymore.
That’s what Disney does, although it’s less about draining the victims financially (there’s lawyers who will take the case without getting paid up front), Disney’s tactics here are about draining the victims emotionally. I was friends with the monorail pilot who was killed about 15 years ago, Disney dragged out the case and ultimately got his mom to take a settlement.
That’s some pretty hardcore click bait.
They’re arguing her estate has to go to arbitration. They’re not arguing they are absolved of guilt.
It’s pretty ugly already, but the title is sensational bullshit.
They want it to go to arbitration where A. Their dirty laundry will not be aired publicly, they can enforce complete privacy and gag the defense forever, and
B. Where the arbitration that the company hand-picks will almost guarantee to conveniently rule in favor of the company with a binding, non-appealable ruling?Fuck all of that, it does not make it better. Dinsey is trying to operate outside the law like every other corporation so desperately wants to.
Arbitrators are very likely to lose their business if they rule against their more frequent client (which is the company of course).
I have no clue what the title is trying to tell me and I’m not clicking the link to find out, because fuck clickbait.
The original article title wasn’t clickbait. OP is.
This is the most ridiculous American thing I’ve read in a long time.
They really went above and beyond to look for any “legal” excuse to get away with it. Whoever suggested to even use this as a defense can’t possibly be a human being. What an absolutely disgusting low-point for such a company…
Sooo …
If you only ever pirated their content, you have better legal standing?
I think I don’t get how that’s the message they want to send out to the world…
I hope some politician finally steps in and nullifies all forced arbitration clauses, in past and future contracts. There is no legitimate reason for them to be allowed from the customer’s standpoint (and most voters are primarily customers).
So we’re just straight up making up headlines now? The reality is atrocious enough without just lying about what’s happening.
Yeah, that headline is atrocious. The reality of the situation is sensational enough, I’d argue dialling up the outrage actually diminishes the impact.
A new low
So frustrating seeing this shit. I simply dont understand how this type of language is allowed to be present in T&Cs.
Wait, it’s not even a Disney owned property within the parks? It’s a separately owned pub in Disney Springs?
That makes a hell of a lot more sense… Disney cast members are fanatical about following dietary guidelines.
It’s worse than that. It’s arguing that her estate and surviving husband can’t sue because he had a trial subscription to Disney+. It’s fucking absurd.
Fuck em. I hope the attorneys that argued this and any executive that learned about it and could have stopped it get cancer and suffer in the worst ways imaginable.
Because she had a trial if I read it correctly. So the dismissal is baseless
After their meal, Piccolo returned to their hotel room, and Tangsuan and her mother-in-law continued to shop at Disney Springs. later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood, self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died.
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.
From this it seems the husband was the one with the Disney+ trial, and they’re arguing that this lets them off the hook legally for his wife’s death.
Too bad that if the motion gets denied, chances are the jurors will never hear that Disney pulled this shit in the first place.
If I knew that I would do my best to give a hundred million dollars to the plaintiffs because Disney can afford it and they should be punished for being dick heads and that would be within our power as a jury to do.
Agreed. Fuck, I’d even say that’s just appropriate damages, not even just magnified to match their means. They killed a doctor. I’d want Disney to compensate not just for her life, but for all of the invaluable medical care she’d have been able to provide for who knows how many patients over a long career which was cut tragically short by sheer negligence.
Another piece of evidence that Disney is straight up evil
And people dont like it when louis rossman calls this EULA rufying
It’s spelled roofying or roofieing
Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the hell “rufying” was supposed to be…
Guess u must be an expert in the field
Not legal to kill her, but absolve themselves of a food-related death from a Disney property because the language in the disney+ terms say “all dispute swith the company shall be arbitrated”
FTC, theres a company here that got so big it thinks its internet video app terms absolve it’s completely seperate theme park from being sued. If that’s not too big to exist then nothing is.
