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.”

276 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
100 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

Yep, exactly.

They’re asserting and graciously waiving a “right” they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I’m waiving my right to steal from Disney.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They’ll set this precedent eventually. It will only take a few tries and especially against someone who cant fight back.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

All unilateral contracts where one side holds all the cards and can arbitrarily dictate or even alter previously agreed to terms should be held to the strictest standards. This includes employment agreements, terms of service, license agreements and so on.

Contracts between equals can be more permissive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

There was a heavily implied “THIS TIME” at the end of that statement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
224 points

“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.”

permalink
report
reply
140 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
48 points

Yeah that’s basically “slavery is okay if you sign a contract first”. Should be self evidently wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That is unfortunately true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

snail mail then my own terms and if they don’t react, I assume that my terms were accepted.

I’m pretty sure you haven’t run this strategy by a lawyer. If you’ve actively agreed to their terms and they haven’t responded to your counter terms… How do you imagine a court is going to interpret that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I use their exact same language of “by continuing to allow access to the system, you agree to the terms.”

I am not a lawyer but the way I see it, there is no downside.

  • if it’s accepted by a court, then I win
  • if it’s not accepted, then the language itself is now influx, opening the door for me or others to use the ruling to continue to chip away at forced arbitration and I’m no worse off than just accepting their terms
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Do you sent via certified mail or something else that has proof of receipt, and how do you decide who at the company to send it to?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

However, it’s our late stage capitalism

It’s not capitalism. It’s rent-seeking, which is what came before capitalism. The “Free Market” that Adam Smith talked about wasn’t a market free from regulations, it was a market free from economic rents, free from monopolies, etc. The big problems we’re seeing now aren’t because we have too much capitalism, it’s because the capitalism we have is shifting more towards rent-seeking, monopolies, artificial scarcity, etc. It’s basically feudalism. In a proper capitalist system you have competition. That’s the “free market”. If someone doesn’t like the decisions a business is making, they’ll switch to another one.

Companies can only get away with the kinds of things Disney tries when they don’t have to worry about competition. In other words, it’s no longer a capitalist system, it’s a rent-seeking business. Disney is built around its intellectual property, and IP is nothing but rent-seeking. Nobody can compete with Disney and make a better Star Wars movie because Disney owns the rights to anything Star Wars related.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Arbitration is fine.

Forced arbitration is the problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In most places they can’t.

EULAs do not override local laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
136 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
71 points

They said they decided to waive their right to arbitration. They still think that’s their right, fucking sickening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

I think they put it that way because they want to signal how powerful they are while pretending to be ethical

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Exactly, i thought of this as a tapping of the holstered guns they’re openly wearing

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yes. Not sure why you deleted this. It’s just true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I deleted it because you already said it in your post :P

permalink
report
parent
reply
131 points

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

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Do you have some reason why you think they will be bankrupt and/or split up?

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a bankruptcy - Disney has Gross profits of ~30 Billion a year and net profits of ~2-5 Billion a year. Even if their lawyers become completely incompetent and allow them to be sued for max penalties every month of the year, it wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The parks have been running at a loss and they’ve been spending like crazy on acquisitions and running all said acquisitions into the ground

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

I met a shitposter from modern social media,
Who asked with a frown, wrinkle lip
And sneer of cold contempt:

“Do you have some reason why you think
This company with vast amounts of these
stamped lifeless things
Will go bankrupt and/or split up?”

But regardless of all the corp-simping,
In the future, only these words survive.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away."

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why is corpo-simping so common on this platform?

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.


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.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 107K

    Comments