Technology

59415 readers

1166 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

523

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

submitted 3 months ago by otter@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

59 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

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 116 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

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.

Not that I'm condoning piracy, but pirates don't have to deal with this crap. Just sayin'. This situation is basically the plot of the Cent-iPad episode of South Park, and hopefully the courts strike this "defense" down with prejudice.

And since the FTC found its teeth, maybe it should look at the behemoth that Disney has been allowed to become; they own way too many media properties.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 43 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry to hear you aren't condoning piracy. Wish we could convince you to support us. In many ways we are the good guys. When was the last time you saw a pirate kill someone and send their family a hey fuck you notice?

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Last week, but that asshole had it coming!

[–] skankhunt42@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While I agree, where should it stop?

Just by getting into new cars you agree to their TOS. Buying a new phone, using internet services/websites, etc. You almost can't breath without agreeing to one TOS or another. We need this shit to stop and local laws are the only way I see out of it.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

At they very least, the TOSs need to be limited in scope to just the product or service specifically used by the customer. Having them be written or interpreted so broadly as to encompass anything the company does, in any business unit, should be unenforceable (and ideally illegal).

And also granular: If I don't agree to Google or Microsoft phoning my activity back to the mothership, then those "feature" should be disabled without preventing me from using the device I paid for.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago

Not that I’m condoning piracy,

We should all condone ~~piracy~~ sharing.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

I condone piracy, and you should too.