Wow. I bet their just trying to drag the case out until the guy can’t afford it. If something like this was successful none of us stand a chance against any company legally anymore.
That’s what Disney does, although it’s less about draining the victims financially (there’s lawyers who will take the case without getting paid up front), Disney’s tactics here are about draining the victims emotionally. I was friends with the monorail pilot who was killed about 15 years ago, Disney dragged out the case and ultimately got his mom to take a settlement.
Not legal to kill her, but absolve themselves of a food-related death from a Disney property because the language in the disney+ terms say “all dispute swith the company shall be arbitrated”
Can you take your unopinionated headlines somewhere else? This is a technology community.
It does suggest tech users should think twice about the scope of the arbitration clauses in the user agreements they sign.
It’s worse than that. It’s arguing that her estate and surviving husband can’t sue because he had a trial subscription to Disney+. It’s fucking absurd.
Because she had a trial if I read it correctly. So the dismissal is baseless
After their meal, Piccolo returned to their hotel room, and Tangsuan and her mother-in-law continued to shop at Disney Springs. later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood, self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died.
In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.
From this it seems the husband was the one with the Disney+ trial, and they’re arguing that this lets them off the hook legally for his wife’s death.
Too bad that if the motion gets denied, chances are the jurors will never hear that Disney pulled this shit in the first place.
If I knew that I would do my best to give a hundred million dollars to the plaintiffs because Disney can afford it and they should be punished for being dick heads and that would be within our power as a jury to do.
Wait, it’s not even a Disney owned property within the parks? It’s a separately owned pub in Disney Springs?
That makes a hell of a lot more sense… Disney cast members are fanatical about following dietary guidelines.
lol wut?
Another piece of evidence that Disney is straight up evil
A new low
This is the most ridiculous American thing I’ve read in a long time.
They really went above and beyond to look for any “legal” excuse to get away with it. Whoever suggested to even use this as a defense can’t possibly be a human being. What an absolutely disgusting low-point for such a company…
Sooo …
If you only ever pirated their content, you have better legal standing?
I think I don’t get how that’s the message they want to send out to the world…
I hope some politician finally steps in and nullifies all forced arbitration clauses, in past and future contracts. There is no legitimate reason for them to be allowed from the customer’s standpoint (and most voters are primarily customers).
So frustrating seeing this shit. I simply dont understand how this type of language is allowed to be present in T&Cs.
And people dont like it when louis rossman calls this EULA rufying
It’s spelled roofying or roofieing
Guess u must be an expert in the field
Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the hell “rufying” was supposed to be…
That’s some pretty hardcore click bait.
They’re arguing her estate has to go to arbitration. They’re not arguing they are absolved of guilt.
It’s pretty ugly already, but the title is sensational bullshit.
Arbitrators are very likely to lose their business if they rule against their more frequent client (which is the company of course).
They want it to go to arbitration where A. Their dirty laundry will not be aired publicly, they can enforce complete privacy and gag the defense forever, and
B. Where the arbitration that the company hand-picks will almost guarantee to conveniently rule in favor of the company with a binding, non-appealable ruling?Fuck all of that, it does not make it better. Dinsey is trying to operate outside the law like every other corporation so desperately wants to.
I have no clue what the title is trying to tell me and I’m not clicking the link to find out, because fuck clickbait.
The original article title wasn’t clickbait. OP is.
FTC, theres a company here that got so big it thinks its internet video app terms absolve it’s completely seperate theme park from being sued. If that’s not too big to exist then nothing is.
