Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      1 年前

      They’ve definitely crunched the numbers and figured out this method is cheaper than a settlement, and in a country like the US, they’ll definitely get away with it.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.caBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 年前

        No numbers…they would easily spend 4x as much to defend their arbitration bullshit then actually pay out the guys demands.

        It’s a dick waving contest and Disney wants the world to see their dick. Nothing more.

    • BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 年前

      Apparently the same clause is in the Disney account terms used to buy the tickets to the park

      Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.

      Which would hold more water than the clause in the Disney+ terms (that articles on the subject focus on way too much just for clickbait)

      Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chambers, says the terms in the Disney+ trial are a “weak argument for Disney to rely on”.

      However, he says, the clause in the ticket purchase from 2023 may be a stronger case, “as there is a similar arbitration clause”.

      But anyway, it’s really insensitive from Disney to try to arbitrate such a tragic incident.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 年前

      It definitely should be illegal as a term for using a product or service. At the absolute minimum we should ban non-mutual arbitration clauses and these bullshit “for any dispute” clauses.

  • breakingcups@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 年前

    Everything about this is awful, forced arbitration in consumer terms of service are a pox on justice.

  • vegaquake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 年前

    Piracy is safer, more cost efficient, privacy respecting, and more versatile when consuming media across multiple devices.

    We have come a long way, folks. The dystopia is here and it’s going strong, but we shouldn’t let it strike us down.

    Please consider piracy for your own good! ❤️

        • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 年前

          fighting Desantis

          Sounds like a local American matter. I hadn’t even heard of this and it certainly wouldn’t change my view of Disney at all.

          • nik9000@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 年前

            I was curious. Looks like Florida has about the same population as Sri Lanka. Similar to Romania for the EU folks. While I could find them both on a map I couldn’t tell you anything going on their. Much less news from a year ago.

            Maybe its fair to bump the populations some because Desantis was a Republican presidential hopeful. But I couldn’t tell you the names of the folks who lost the last Tory leadership election.

            So, yeah, comment checks out.

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 年前

    Don’t they have notifications in their restaurants warning people about allergens? Also, it is cheaper to pay the guy the $50k he wants so long as he signs a doc that says Disney is not at fault. This is so strange (and terrible).

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 年前

      The claim is that the victim repeatedly informed the waiter about her allergy needs and checked more than once whether her order could be prepared safely in accordance with her needs, the waiter repeatedly told her it was prepared accordingly, and it was not.

      Restaurants are absolutely capable of allergen free food prep and telling customers which foods cannot be safely prepared. Disney is absolutely at fault.

      • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        Fine, but it is just weird they didn’t have a notification in their restaurant regarding allergens and aren’t just paying him the requested settlement - like this is the strangest, most expensive path they could have taken.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 年前

          A notice isn’t relevant. It doesn’t remove their liability.

          And he absolutely definitely shouldn’t take a settlement that requires absolving them of wrongdoing.