Arbitration clauses must be made illegal
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
1548 points (98.2% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9720 readers
829 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Or at least reasonable.
It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
Arbitration is never the right answer. Fix the judicial system, don’t privatize it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(12 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Make sure to pirate all Disney media instead of consuming it legally so that you can sue them if they try to kill you.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Disney allowed to kill your spouse because you watched the mandalorian
load more comments
(1 replies)
The dark arts of the mouse are a pathway to legal techniques some consider to be… unnatural.
People don't realize how important the outcome of this court case will be.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Piracy is the safe option then. Got it.
All it takes is one free trial. They got me, it's over.
Piracy, watching through a friend, BluRays & DVDs, hard copies & actually owning something as opposed to...perpetually renting access, owning nothing & being happy about it.
How can a streaming service agreement apply to a restaurant ~~in a park~~?
Wasn't even in a park. The restaurant is in a separate mall. No ticket needed.
load more comments
(3 replies)
FWIW, I don't think the judge is going to go for it. Disney's lawyers are the most bloodthirsty son of a bitch lawyers on Earth, but just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will accept it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Disney said late Wednesday that it is “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss but stressed the Irish pub is neither owned nor operated by the company. The company’s stance in the litigation doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s claims against the eatery, it added.
“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company wrote in an emailed statement.
For some reason that word "merely" just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it's peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.
...Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights...
Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.
The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they're all false in order to win the law suit.
So it'll look like:
- I didn't do it.
- Even if I did do it you can't prove it was me.
- Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn't be liable.
- Even if I was liable this has to be settled by arbitration.
So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it's worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they'll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I sincerely hope this shit blows up. May corporations providing "free" services forever be associated with literal devil's contacts. Piracy is no longer just about sticking it to the man, it's about freedom!
It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.
I can't believe this is even a fucking thing
load more comments
(2 replies)
How the fuck is it not punishable to write stuff into those contracts that contradict the law (obv. i mean this past a certain company size). Like for real.
Edit: Typo
I don't know what the exact agreement here is, but such things are very often not enforceable. You can't have someone sign their rights away. You can have them sign the document, but that document will be worthless in court and will not be respected. Those are more to scare people and discourage them from suing the company.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
I really hope a politician bans those "Class Action Waiver" and "Revoking Right to Arbitration" riders that are getting put into everyone's Term and Conditions contracts. We should have the right to band together if a corporation fucks us over and this is ridiculous.
load more comments
(4 replies)
As a person who owns Disney stocks, I would just like to say:
Pay up, bitches!
load more comments
(2 replies)
I know this isn't the point at all, but it must suck to be the chef in charge of that kitchen right now. Like you've already made a mistake that's killed a doctor and now it's become massive international news...Yikes!
Yknow what else sucks? Dying.
Also I wonder if the staff could be charged with involuntary manslaughter
load more comments
(7 replies)
I sure hope they not only lose, but get further punitive damages for even trying to pull this shit.
Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.
They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone's right to seek justice.
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn't really make it better but still
Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I'm not saying they are in the right, all I'm relativizing is the "years earlier" at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn't cover this kind of situation.
No. That doesn't make sense either. That was for the park this is their restaurant at their mall off site.
Edit: the tickets they didn't survive long enough to actually use either.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The restaurant was not in a ticketed park, so the ticket purchase is as related to this as the Disney+ trial.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
This feels so illegal. If it isn't, it should be. Fuck Disney for this.
Dependig on the country you live in, there might be some law above what Disney might say. For example in most European Countries it's the case. And no matter what Disney writes, like "killing you is alright". There is a law above it that overrules it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This could go either way and be an amazing consumer victory, or essentially the end of the right to sue over anything, ever.
Though what will really happen if it looks like Disney might lose, is Disney will pay off the widower to drop the suit and prevent a precedent.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Even more ridiculous is that according to this article the agreement even extends to the free trials, even if they don't extend past the trial period.
damn imperialist rat
view more: next ›