• matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Disney lawyers are using an arbitration clause in their Disney account agreement to try to dismiss a lawsuit over a death caused by allergies at Raglan Road. You should be able to find the articles from there.

    It’s a bit simplistic to say that it’s specifically a Disney+ issues.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      3 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.

      • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 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.

      • mbirth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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

        Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Except Disney lawyers actually cited the clause the in the Disney+ subscription.

      Yes, there’s more, but they actually cited Disney+.

      I really can’t emphasize that enough.