Technology

60000 readers

2163 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

523

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber (wdwnt.com)

submitted 4 months ago by otter@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/16155215

Disney has asked a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed earlier this year regarding a woman who passed away due to anaphylaxis after a meal at Disney Springs, citing an arbitration waiver in the terms and conditions for Disney+.

...

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.

In the May 31 motion filed to move the wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, Disney attorneys said that the Disney+ subscriber agreement states that any dispute, except for small claims, “must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

...

Attorneys for Piccolo called Disney’s latest motion “preposterous,” and that it’s “‘absurd’ to believe that the 153 million subscribers to the popular streaming service have waived all claims against the company and its affiliates because of language ‘buried’ within the terms and conditions,” according to Newsday.

The notion that terns agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement.

Brian Denny, Piccolo’s West Palm Beach attorney in a filing on August 2, 2024

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 196 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Wow, just... wow. Can you be any more evil?

We really need to strike down this arbitration agreement nonsense. If I want to resolve a dispute by arbitration, that should be an option, but never a requirement.

[–] exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de 49 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's also a great example why these mega corps should be broken up into smaller pieces.

If forced arbitration persists (and this argumentation from Disney is successful and then used as precedence) any service used from one company can be used to forever ban you from taking legal action against that company again even if the service and the reason for the legal action have nothing to do with each other.

Am I right in understanding that this case is about someone dying from eating in a Disney owned restaurant that by accident was a Disney+ subscriber?

If one company owns everything like Amazon, Google, Apple and in the future maybe even water supply, garbage collection, operates my car and is my insurer or bank account (and owner of one of the 4 remaining fast food chains in the country) how can people actually sue a company then ?

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Her HUSBAND signed the terms + conditions for a free 1 month trial. They're claiming that he can't sue for a wrongful death on her behalf because of THAT.

[–] exocortex@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 months ago

yeah that's just ridiculous. omg

[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

He signed up for the trial in 2019, he wasnt even a current subscriber.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Their leadership should be broken up into smaller pieces.

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 4 points 4 months ago

With a sharp falling object of French design?

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 months ago

Arbitration isn't inherently bad, but any arbitration clause in any unilateral contract should automatically be void.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

And certainly not binding arbitration.