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) (15 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 (13 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.

[–] 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

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (35 replies)