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

[–] BarrierWithAshes@fedia.io 25 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Guy dies in Disneyland. Family sues. Disney lawyers say he can't sue since guy-that-died had subscribed to Disney+ before and agreed to the terms of service. The terms of service he probably scrolled by when he registered say "you can't sue us". That was the most recent move I've heard.

That's an insane oversimplification of the proceedings but it appears like it's gonna come down to this clause. The clause that the user signs upon registering to Disney+ is a binding arbitration clause. You can read more about that here: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mandatory-binding-arbitration.asp

Basically says you waive your right to sue us. Ianal btw. Also Discord has this same clause in their terms of service.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It was a woman that died I believe, and it's her husband suing. It was him that signed up for the trial though, not the wife. The death was also caused by anaphylaxis, after the couple repeatedly checked in about the allergy being accommodated and were assured it would be.

[–] BarrierWithAshes@fedia.io 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right. I was not aware of that. This whole thing is just horrible. Really hope this clause can't be enforced. Disneyland's neglect caused a death.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago

Yeah like, lawyers and corporations are messed up, but this really feels like a new low.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (34 replies)