475
Disney wants wrongful death of LI doctor lawsuit tossed over Disney+ streaming terms (longisland.news12.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/news@lemmy.world
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The lawsuit claims that Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant despite repeatedly informing the waiter of her severe allergy.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 405 points 3 months ago

"Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior.

The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company."

Some lawyers truly are scum.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 153 points 3 months ago

This could be a precedent-setting case. These fuckers better not get away with this.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 33 points 3 months ago

So would this mean that Disney can no longer use their massive legal department to crush fair use of their IP? If someone signs up for Disney+, the arbitration agreement goes both ways.

I would think a competent judge would just ask the Disney lawyer that question. Like, "do you want to be out of a job?"

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 59 points 3 months ago

No.

You and Disney agree to arbitrate all your claims. Disney still retains the right to fuck you over to the full extent of the legal system.

After all, corporations are people, and some people are more people than other people.

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 3 months ago

That's the best paraphrase of Animal Farm I've heard in a while.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

But this is happening in post-precedent America

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago

Maybe we can finally claw these arbitration powers back?

[-] iamericandre@lemmy.world 66 points 3 months ago

Wait this isn’t a joke?

[-] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 80 points 3 months ago

Very much nottheonion material. Something like

”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Shellfish Poisonings”

[-] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"Signing up for a free trial of Disney+ means they can kill you, legally."

[-] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago

”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Political Assassination”

[-] iamericandre@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

Fucking hell

[-] mke@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago

If a lawyer is scum, then so is the one paying them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 3 months ago

Some people/companies/etc. really take “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take” too far.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

I do hope whoever suggested that this is a legitimate cause to dismiss the case dies of an intestinal blockage caused by hemorrhoids. Just a thing I hope.

[-] scytale@lemm.ee 28 points 3 months ago

Arguing over health/death via a technicality is one of the lowest of lows.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

This shouldn't even be a technicality here. If this goes through and a TOS is universally binding to your life then the court system just died. Also they can put other ridiculous things in there like you owe them the subscription money in perpetuity even if you decide to uninstall the app. They'll argue the consideration is there because you can re-install at any time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Voltage@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago

this is actual parody dystopian movie level crazy wtf

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago

All corporate lawyers are scum.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cdf12345@lemm.ee 200 points 3 months ago

Arbitration clauses need to be deemed illegal.

Especially ones that are mandatory for employment

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 70 points 3 months ago

or at the absolute bare fucking minimum be opt-in only, instead of "opt out by sending us a handwritten letter through snail mail within 45 minutes of this notice." the shit offers less than zero benefit to the consumer and basically lets corporations get away with murder

nothing will ever change to make them go away

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Opt in with customers isn't a thing. If you don't opt in, you don't get housing, or Internet, or phone service. The list goes on. Opt in is libertarian propaganda. No different than at will employment.

[-] Sesudesu@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I was gonna say basically the same thing, ‘opt in’ is just a solid point of leverage away from ‘required.’

Should be illegal.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 48 points 3 months ago

Arbitration has its place in B2B contracts.

With consumers or employees? Absolutely not

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gramie@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago

I'm just about to move to Quebec, which is based on the French Napoleonic code rather than English Common Law. I'm not an expert, but I understand that the French system does not rely on precedent in making judicial decisions, but everything has to be codified in the law.

Anyway, another one of the legal differences between Quebec and other provinces in Canada is that mandatory arbitration clauses are illegal.

The medical system may be imploding even faster than the rest of Canada, and my rights as an English speaker may be stripped from me by the time I move, but they do have some protections for individuals.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 119 points 3 months ago

Incredible.

Do the right thing, courts.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 69 points 3 months ago

Pllllllllllleeeeeeaaassseeeee let this go to trial. I'm begging y'all. They weren't even active subscribers of Disney+, they only got the trial. But holy fuck either way, this is stupid. Arbitration agreements should be illegal.

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago

ugh, how revolting. for a while there, while they were fighting desantis, i forgot how evil disney can be.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

Evil begets evil, Mr. president. (Extra points if you can name the movie)

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

for a gen-xer like me, that's easy.

leeloo dallas multipass

ZZZZ!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

I am a meat popsicle

[-] JonsJava@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

It's the one where they are in the future, and have aliens, and a bunch of greedy people. It has a hero in it, that makes a stand for what is right, killing a bunch of aliens.

Battlefield Earth, right?

(/s, please don't kill me, Corbin)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dudinax@programming.dev 63 points 3 months ago

Everyone who approved and delivered this argument should go to prison.

[-] Kiernian@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago

Event happened at raglan road Irish pub, when raglan road staff failed to do their job in regards to food allergens.

Diner dies from anaphylaxis due to ingested dairy and nuts, which they were ASSURED BY THE WAITER WAS NOT IN ANY OF THEIR FOOD.

Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior. The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

That's insane. When are citizens going to be protected from fucking mandated forced arbitration?????

[-] PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Never because when corporations do it it's "capitalism" and "freedom".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Haven’t courts ruled that those terms and conditions aren’t totally enforceable since no one can really read and/or understand them all?

This is a food issue and literally has nothing to do with any fucking digital agreement whatsoever. Full stop.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JonsJava@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The estate should file the claim. They wronged her, not the husband. By having the estate file suit, that would negate anything the husband may have done.

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

And sue the chef personally, for completeness

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dorkyd68@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

Holy cow. Just pay the man Disney. Then kindly fuck off

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nieceandtows@programming.dev 39 points 3 months ago

It would be a lot more beneficial to them to add an arbitration clause to all their movies. Watching the next avengers movie? You give up the rights to your first born.

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 30 points 3 months ago

How is this not a criminal matter

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I've seen this Black Mirror.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
475 points (99.4% liked)

News

23376 readers
2943 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world