In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron's ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like "purchase" to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.

Which isn't helping enough

[–] matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 47 points 3 months ago (5 children)

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 3 months ago (3 children)

I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny

Unless it reaches the Supreme Court and in yet another 6-3 decision the corpos get to loot and pillage more with even less accountability.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 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 3 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 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago

I'm less cynical about SCOTUS

Is it cynicism when I'm following their actions and expecting more of the same? The SC makes shit up after the fact and finds ass-pulls to make it sound like the Constitution said that. That's why, effectively, the POTUS can't commit crimes as long as they are arbitrarily determined to be "official acts" now. They already announced we're ruled by kings. How much further need it go?

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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 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.

[–] D61@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

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

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

IANAL but i am wondering if Disney is somehow letting this case go as a backdoor way to legitimize arbitration agreements.

Like, i just can't see Disney not knowing this is the wrong case to push the legitimacy of an arbitration agreement. But if this case somehow legitimized through whachacallit... precedent... that an arbitration agreement, while binding in a primary sense, is not binding for every Disney product, wouldn't Disney (and really every company that uses binding arbitration as part of using their product) consider that a win?

Because as i understand it, arbitration agreements as a requirement to use a service is still an untested legal grey area. Anything legitimizing them at all would be a win... Right? Againn ianal

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 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 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago

I wonder if you can buy tickets in person to avoid making the account.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 3 points 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.

load more comments (35 replies)