/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23951318/STK080_VRG_Illo_N_Barclay_7_disney_.jpg)
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
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.”
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.
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.
Yep, exactly.
They’re asserting and graciously waiving a “right” they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.
Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I’m waiving my right to steal from Disney.
They’ll set this precedent eventually. It will only take a few tries and especially against someone who cant fight back.
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.
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.
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.
If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.
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.
Agreed. It’s pretty telling that none of these corporations would accept an open ended arbitration clause in their dealings with any other corporation.
There was a heavily implied “THIS TIME” at the end of that statement.
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.