This is crazy. Disney is claiming that a wrongful death lawsuit cannot go forward (paraphrasing):
“sorry, your husband signed up to a Disney+ trial a couple of years ago, hence they accepted T&Cs that clearly stated that any dispute about our products should go through arbitration rather than through courts”.
Even if a consumer carefully reads the terms and conditions, how could they reasonably expect the ToS for a video game would affect the terms they are under at a Disney restaurant? That’s fucking nuts.
Future parents: “sorry kids, you cannot play that video game because there is an arbitration clause and one day you might want to visit Disney’s amusement parks.”
I’ve boycotted Disney for over a decade because of how conservative the corp is and how right-wing extremist they are with politics. IIRC Disney financed the campaign of a politician looking to eliminate background checks on firearms. Indeed, the company who entertains kids is happy to fight against basic gun control. So when Disney pulls a dick move like this arbitration clause it just reinforces the idea that boycotting Disney is the right move.
(edit) wow the ups and downs of the votes are interesting. ATM 9 up & 9 down. Can’t help but wonder who are these anti-human people who are happy to lick the corporate boots of Disney… capitalist fanatics disappointed that people would object to arbitration clauses perversely applied so broadly? I have to wonder if loyal Disney employees are following this thread.
I mean, Disney didn’t invent this approach. It’s been done before, and is why companies are always trying to get you to sign off on an agreement that binds you to arbitration.
It’s one of the reasons it was so interesting when Valve took a step in the opposite direction recently, and explicitly said they would not do arbitration.
Was it ever tested in court before? I thought Disney dropped it before it could. But uber seems to have so far prevailed in forcing arbitration. From an eats order their daughter agreed to, vs them using uber taxi.
Usually the cases are more clear cut (i.e. arbitration clause is part of agreement directly related to service in question). That part is well established and proven in multiple court cases. The “stretch” Disney tried to pull was an arbitration clause for one service being used to apply to a different service by the same company. That was never proven or disproven in court, as Disney withdrew the motion (and the subsequently settled out of court?)
In terms of it being supported by a court, I suspect it will depend on the court. Depending on how the agreement clause is written and included in a terms of service, one could argue that the agreement is with the company, regardless of what service the consumer is interacting with. I mean, it’s the approach of morally bankrupt weasels, but could certainly see many Trump and Bush appointed judges agreeing with those arguments