Shit, that's a bad look for Disney. The idea that someone could sign up for a 30-day trial to some product and completely lose their right to a jury trial for life against any and all companies associated with the parent company is absurd.
The attorney was right to describe that as preposterous. And if the court cedes and tosses the trial, it sets a chilling precedent against consumer rights.
Yeah Christ I got to the part where it was just a fucking trial agreement and was fucking floored.
Fuck Disney.
Any company that can kill a person and say it was fine cause they can't be held responsible because they don't want to deserves to burn to the ground with their C suite in the building.
Don't forget the board of directors, someone hired those c suite people on purpose to do this kind of thing.
Disney continues to prove that I am quite correct in my ongoing boycott. Haven't spent any money on Disney at all in 5 years or so.
I enjoyed The Acolyte, although it wasn't as good as Andor. But really, nothing from the Mouse will be that good for a while.
No I don't pay for a D+ membership. Yes I still have 9TB free on my NAS
Wow, Disney could not be making a more disingenuous argument. Fuck Disney. I hope their stock tanks and they go under.
I wonder if they have some longer term strategy here because this story is far too damaging over a 50k payout.
Like maybe they make an insane argument to undermine arbitration clauses so they can win elsewhere.
Because this is a maliciously bad look for Disney. Nobody should ever have to think about streaming contracts while deciding where to eat.
Carve the Mouse! Break it up!
I think the reason that they're fighting it so hard is to defend arbitration clauses while the courts are still conservitive controlled. If they got sued in court despite the arbitration clause then that sets president to throw out those clauses. If they can get the courts to uphold the clause then that actually gives arbitration clauses some teeth. But if they're going to do that then the need to do it now while there is still any chance of it being ruled in their favor and they have the money to drag this thing all the way up to the corrupt supreme court if they need to.
I can't see any way that they win this case on the merits of the argument.
But if I'm wrong and they win, a whole lot of lawsuits are gonna disappear. That's a terrible precedent to set.
Current SCOTUS are something of terrible prescident afficionados.
I feel the sudden urge to pirate D+ shows even harder now.
The Acolyte is good. Do it.
Counterpoint: The only good Star Wars show is Andor. The rest is passable at best
I'm so burned out on Star Wars and Marvel that Disney would have to pay me to watch that schlock. My only regret is that I cancelled D+ a year ago and I can't stick it to them again over this bs.
Burned out on Star Wars? I'm still going since 1977 ...
Aren't contracts null and void if one party ends the service? Like the trial is over so the contract has ended. Just because I test drove a Ford once does not mean I can't sue Ford for their car exploding next to mine and destroying it.
Even if it weren't an expired trial for Disney+ though. I think it's incredibly unreasonable that an agreement to arbitration related to your streaming service should apply to restaurant liability. No reasonable person would believe that they should check the clauses of their Paramount+ contract before eating a Sonic the Hedgehog chili dog from the spot in the park next to the aaahh real monsters log flume ride. If we decide that that's how we should legally be living, then it's absolutely time to rip subsidiaries out of the hands of parent companies. When there are only like 6 companies in the world, there is no legitimate competition. I reject the logical conclusion to this strategy, which is that we are cash cow consumers, paying a subscription for company membership to continue being alive and waiving all personal freedoms and choices.
It's way past time to break up these gigantic conglomerates. But better late than never.
Such a shitty defense. I’d probably rule in favor of the plaintiff just because of its bizarre stretch. Like why not just claim “plaintiff knew they had a food allergy and yet did not carry an epi pen” or something else grounded in reality rather than this Disney+ nonsense? Disney should fire these lawyers and settle with an NDA before this gets any worse.
“plaintiff knew they had a food allergy and yet did not carry an epi pen”
Except they did. They self-administered the epi-pen before being taken to the hospital like you're supposed to.
This is clearly a hail Mary from Disney, and I have no idea why considering the bad publicity will clearly outweigh a wrongful death payment. Disney has people die at their facilities all the time, usually it's unrelated to anything they did, but it's not like people haven't suddenly had heart attacks or a stroke at a park before.
If you read the article you'd notice that she did carry and administer the EpiPen and still died later at the hospital. Not a doctor so no idea how that works but it seems like she did everything she was supposed to.
Wow that is awful.
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world