853
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

You press 'Agree', you lost the right to sue the company.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 56 points 2 years ago* (23 children)

Well, I won’t be using Uber any more. Right alongside anything produced by Disney.

Fuck both of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (16 children)

    Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.

    Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.

    Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago (14 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant,

    Then they should have argued that instead of "you can't sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    1. Moving to arbitration where the party making the agreement picks the arbiter, is close to being dismissed because there is about a 10% chance of winning.

    2. The restaurant is in Disney Springs. Correct that its not Disney but they still have a stake in the restaurant.

    Your misinformation is just as bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Wow, no reason for name calling. I was just calling out how you were doing a similar injustice to the truth. But okay, I am a cunt for disagreeing with your assessment.

    I’m not arguing that Disney should be held liable just that your generalization was wrong. If you are going to argue points of view on the internet and revert to name calling all I have to say is go to bed you child.

    In other news, like the article that spurred this thread corporations using ToS to scapegoat things is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 2 years ago (4 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    There is no way the disney brand would allow complete control over a sub contractor. Disney has final say in anything inside those gates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    The amount of brain worm from this whole thing is amazing to me. This is on the level of trumper shit at this point. Seeing so many people incapable of acknowledging that they misunderstood something is just crazy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know you're a good person for being patient with so many boobs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm not saying Disney should be held liable, but the fact remains that the defense they initially went with was "You used an unrelated service for a week several years ago so you can't sue us" instead of something credible and relevant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with. And the "unrelated service" that they used (on actually several occasions according to Disney's motion) contained a boilerplate arbitration agreements that literally every corporation under the sun uses. Shady as shit? Absolutely. Both parties are being shady as shit. The lawsuit only included Disney because there was never going to be a big payday without them. Nothing about the plaintiff or Disney is either credible or relevant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Did Disney do something recently?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They tried the exact same thing not too long ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Oh yeah, I forgot about injustice in the sea of injustice that has been the last few years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    FYI, the disney situation that people are referring to here is a very complicated legal situation rife with bad actors. The reporting on it was broadly mishandled by the media, so legal professionals have broken it down. It is far more nuanced than people here are making it out to be and the simple narrative that you will see getting upvoted entirely mischaracterizes what actually happened (ie happened according to both disney and the plaintiff, yes they both agree). But due to the fact that disney kind of comes out of the situation looking like - dare I say - the good guy (or at least the gooder one), people have latched onto the misinformed simplistic narrative because it requires less effort and falls into the evil corporation trope. So instead of making any claims here, because I'm exhausted from arguing with Internet babies and I have a ketamine therapy today, I encourage you to watch Legal Eagle's breakdown of the case.

    I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that this is a complex topic that has been mishandled by the media. I work in an extremely remote location with thousands of people that might as well be flat-earthers, so being truthful is extremely important to me. And we will need honest discourse if we as a society are ever going to overcome the misinformation brainworm that US politics has put on steroids. Good luck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent