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.”
I will never knowingly hand money to that corporation or their entities ever fucking again.
Good luck. They own a lot of stuff.
If you don’t step foot on Disneyland or Disneyworld it’s pretty easy to avoid. Just find alternative sources for all their media instead of paying them.
I literally can’t even buy tangerines at the grocery store without giving money to Disney because they printed Mickey or some shit on the bag.
Weird. Where do you live?
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”.
I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.
“Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn’t have everyone so riled up and hating us.”
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”.
Insane that there was no one from Disney side who did not try to stop this in the first place. Don’t mind the empathy, nobody saw this as a bad move for their image? Unless they were being sued for 100+ M I don’t see how this made sense financially for them.
And this terrible dry response from them, insane.
we’ve decided to waive our right
“we are not wrong, fuck you”
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.
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.
Arbitration is fine.
Forced arbitration is the problem.
In most places they can’t.
EULAs do not override local laws.
Yeah that’s basically “slavery is okay if you sign a contract first”. Should be self evidently wrong.
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
That is unfortunately true.
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.
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.
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?
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
I enjoy the logic of this wager. Nice work.
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?
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.
There was a heavily implied “THIS TIME” at the end of that statement.
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.
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.
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.
Arbitration contracts
especially in click-through licensesare 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.
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.
Jesus, this story made me feel so fucking gross. So fucking disgusting what they were trying to do.
The Verge - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Verge:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceBoycott Disney, the high seas exist if you need to get your fix
Some of us are old, confused and ignorant when it comes to that sort of (naughty) shenanigans. Is there a “piracy for dummies” somewhere?
Public wifi + deluge + 1337
Use at own risk
Use a VPN device and use strem.io. Or if you want self hosted copies, get a VPN, download qbittorrent, and then hit up 1337x. If you want a free front end, you can setup Jellyfin on an old PC and direct it to your media.
!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com is a good place to start. Check the megathread / FAQ
Fuck Disney!
Honestly I assumed they were pushing this simply to drag out the proceedings. That would force the widower into a position where they couldn’t afford to continue, ensuring they would take whatever NDA Disney offered for whatever amount.
Too. Late.
For a company that pushes so hard to have family friendly image, they had to pull this ridiculous stunt.
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.
Most of the time, nobody notices.
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.
The world where the government is for the corporations not the people. We’re getting very nearly there, with legal bribery and corporates 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.
While I generally agree with you, this case is literally an example of how the public’s outrage DOES matter and potentially changed the course of this case, regardless of the legality.
Yes, for now. Their response says a lot as well. “We’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration”
To me, this is them not wanting the arbitration clause itself looked at, and struck down.
So they back off and let this one pass, until they have enough power to not care about the outrage. (And in all the future cases the clause still applies and they continue to fuck over whomever they will)
Legal and PR are different departments.
