865

Disney gives up on trying to use Disney Plus excuse to settle a wrongful death lawsuit (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

96 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 282 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 101 points 4 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 58 points 4 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 15 points 4 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 40 points 4 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 59 points 4 months ago

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

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher 34 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 4 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 4 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] trustnoone 8 points 4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 225 points 4 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."

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 140 points 4 months ago

Arbitration is an abomination, abused to quash the rights of regular people who could hardly afford to take a stand against the big guy in the first place.

That a person can sign away their legal rights at all is a miscarriage of justice.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 48 points 4 months ago

Yeah that's basically "slavery is okay if you sign a contract first". Should be self evidently wrong.

[-] SmackemWittadic@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I mean in the US it's currently "slavery is okay if you get thrown in jail first".

So it's unfortunately not that big of a leap in their logic

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 4 months ago

Arbitration, generally, is not a bad idea. It's less formal and usually less expensive when you have a disagreement. It really is designed for, say, two friends who are going into business together and want to keep things friendly while giving each other the ability to seek an external arbitor.

However, it's our late stage capitalism that has made forced arbitration an abomination, with corporations seeking to limit their liability by making it unprofitable for individuals to seek legal remedies against very large corporations. Corporations that have the legal equivalent of nukes verses the average customer who has a peashooter.

I'm at the point whenever I see these clauses to snail mail then my own terms and if they don't react, I assume that my terms were accepted. I've been doing this now for the last few years and have yet to have a company shut off my service or reply back.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 136 points 4 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 72 points 4 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 4 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 4 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 59 points 4 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 4 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 9 points 4 months ago

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

[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 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)

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 131 points 4 months ago

we decided to waive our right to arbitration

Fuuuuck you with an umbrella. You didn't have that right, you just used that bullshit idea to save yourself from rightful consequences. You only stopped that idea after the massive backlash, as always. You don't get to act like the good guy uere., fuck you.

I can't wait for Disney to go bankrupt and be split up in twenty normal entertainment companies

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 119 points 4 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 56 points 4 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 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 4 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 87 points 4 months ago

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

[-] CM400@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

“Right to arbitration”

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 81 points 4 months ago

lol they still think they have the right to arbitration.

[-] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 57 points 4 months ago

we’ve decided to waive our right

"we are not wrong, fuck you"

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 4 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 4 months ago

Most of the time, nobody notices.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 4 months ago

Legal and PR are different departments.

[-] NoLifeGaming@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Krzd@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

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

[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Too. Late.

[-] sartalon@feddit.nl 13 points 4 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 12 points 4 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.

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

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

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 11 points 4 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 4 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 4 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 9 points 4 months ago

I wonder if anyone cancels their Disney+ over this. I know I would if I had it.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024

865 points (99.1% liked)

News

23625 readers

4079 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world