354

[Video] Disney creates best argument for piracy in a century (www.youtube.com)

submitted 10 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 47 points 10 months ago

To summarize differently, their argument goes that if you signed up for a trial of Disney+ (or some other such service), you agreed to an arbitration clause as part of the terms of service.

They are arguing that the arbitration clause therefore applies to everything Disney-related, even if it's a service unrelated to Disney+.

I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny and will likely get tossed as unenforceable for being an unconscionable contract. Still, Disney sucks for even attempting such a maneuver, and it equally sucks that the US legal system is in such a state that they think this is a possible avenue for success.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

[deleted]

[-] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago

It's being taken to court in Florida so I'm not sure it'll even have to make it that far. Can't wait for the corporations with captive user bases to start rolling these arbitration clauses in as a paid service for other corporations.

Sorry, you can't sue ExonMobile for wrongful death, they have an arbitration clause in Comcast's end user agreement for your internet service that they leased. If you wanted to sue ExonMobile you should have not had internet, dummy.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

When I was younger, I used to think politics didn't matter and that all politicians are crooks. Now I know that all politicians are crooks AND politics matters and has real-world consequences.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

I'm less cynical about SCOTUS, but only because they aren't a rubber stamp like the 5th Circuit. They are absolutely beholden to FedSoc and Conservative interests, but I doubt corporations want to be bound by clauses like this from some supplier they do business with, either.

[-] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I wonder how much of it is Disney thinks this might actually work versus the ole delay, delay, delay tactic. Probably a little bit of both.

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago

They're gonna do the delay tactic too but this is more insidious.

The amount of money the husband is asking for isn't all that much, pennies to them and in the greater scheme of things this is a nothing suit to them, low stakes. Since it's low stakes they're trying this tactic first to see if it'll stick and create that dangerous precedent. I don't suspect it'll go through but with all these right wing pro capitalist judges it might, and it's worth trying for them since it's such a low stakes suit.

[-] D61@hexbear.net 4 points 10 months ago

At this point they get to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

[-] mbirth@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 months ago

The even bigger irony is that he only sued for $50k. That’s peanuts for big D. Their lawyers probably got more for digging up that arbitration clause.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 8 points 10 months ago

Disney will happily spend a million to defend against 50k if they have a chance of getting a court decision that their contract is valid for everything associated with the Disney brand

[-] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It’s broader than just a Disney+ trial account, it’s part of the whole Disney account, such as when you buy tickets as he did in 2023. Between that and the Florida judge I’m not sure it will get thrown out.

Best case scenario is forced arbitration is just ended. It should be an option, not a requirement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go