/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23951318/STK080_VRG_Illo_N_Barclay_7_disney_.jpg)
Disney tried to force the case into arbitration by citing the agreement on the widower’s Disney Plus trial account.
Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial.
“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” chairman of Disney experiences Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
Sounds to me like they just want to keep that umbrella waiver in the Disney+ agreement rather than have that, rightly, struck down in court.
An umbrella arbitration clause like this, if it were argued at court, surely would only be held up for cases related to Disney+. At least one would hope. Having such an agreement cover entirely separate arms of a company is ridiculous.
Arbitration contracts, especially in click-through licenses, are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.
Arbitration contracts
especially in click-through licensesare always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.There should be no reason why a corporation ahould be able to avoid the justice system for any reason.
I could see very specific cases where arbitration makes sense with a very well defined scope. “Parties agree that disputes over widget quality related to this agreement are to be adjudicated by the Widget Quality Counsel”. The courts are not always the best arbiters for every dispute.
However, what we have now is every corporation finding ways to slide arbitration clauses of global scope into every transaction. That is always bullshit.
If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.
All unilateral contracts where one side holds all the cards and can arbitrarily dictate or even alter previously agreed to terms should be held to the strictest standards. This includes employment agreements, terms of service, license agreements and so on.
Contracts between equals can be more permissive.
Agreed. It’s pretty telling that none of these corporations would accept an open ended arbitration clause in their dealings with any other corporation.
Yeah, imo they got worried that people would start asking government agencies to make legislation about things like this, so theyd rather backtrack now so they can keep it as part of their TOS.
You agreed to Disneys TOS
Assassins from Disney licking their fingers because they can legally kill you /j
Its the dumbest death you can have in an amusement park, dying because the restaurant didnt labeled their allergies right and that the corporation tries to dismiss it because of an DIGITIAL contract that was made for a digital service.
But this is the bs that you got by applying law so freely.
Yep, exactly.
They’re asserting and graciously waiving a “right” they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.
Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I’m waiving my right to steal from Disney.
There was a heavily implied “THIS TIME” at the end of that statement.
The Verge - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Verge:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceArbitration is an abomination, abused to quash the rights of regular people who could hardly afford to take a stand against the big guy in the first place.
That a person can sign away their legal rights at all is a miscarriage of justice.
Arbitration, generally, is not a bad idea. It’s less formal and usually less expensive when you have a disagreement. It really is designed for, say, two friends who are going into business together and want to keep things friendly while giving each other the ability to seek an external arbitor.
However, it’s our late stage capitalism that has made forced arbitration an abomination, with corporations seeking to limit their liability by making it unprofitable for individuals to seek legal remedies against very large corporations. Corporations that have the legal equivalent of nukes verses the average customer who has a peashooter.
I’m at the point whenever I see these clauses to snail mail then my own terms and if they don’t react, I assume that my terms were accepted. I’ve been doing this now for the last few years and have yet to have a company shut off my service or reply back.
However, it’s our late stage capitalism
It’s not capitalism. It’s rent-seeking, which is what came before capitalism. The “Free Market” that Adam Smith talked about wasn’t a market free from regulations, it was a market free from economic rents, free from monopolies, etc. The big problems we’re seeing now aren’t because we have too much capitalism, it’s because the capitalism we have is shifting more towards rent-seeking, monopolies, artificial scarcity, etc. It’s basically feudalism. In a proper capitalist system you have competition. That’s the “free market”. If someone doesn’t like the decisions a business is making, they’ll switch to another one.
Companies can only get away with the kinds of things Disney tries when they don’t have to worry about competition. In other words, it’s no longer a capitalist system, it’s a rent-seeking business. Disney is built around its intellectual property, and IP is nothing but rent-seeking. Nobody can compete with Disney and make a better Star Wars movie because Disney owns the rights to anything Star Wars related.
Do you sent via certified mail or something else that has proof of receipt, and how do you decide who at the company to send it to?
snail mail then my own terms and if they don’t react, I assume that my terms were accepted.
I’m pretty sure you haven’t run this strategy by a lawyer. If you’ve actively agreed to their terms and they haven’t responded to your counter terms… How do you imagine a court is going to interpret that?
I use their exact same language of “by continuing to allow access to the system, you agree to the terms.”
I am not a lawyer but the way I see it, there is no downside.
- if it’s accepted by a court, then I win
- if it’s not accepted, then the language itself is now influx, opening the door for me or others to use the ruling to continue to chip away at forced arbitration and I’m no worse off than just accepting their terms
I enjoy the logic of this wager. Nice work.
Arbitration is fine.
Forced arbitration is the problem.
Yeah that’s basically “slavery is okay if you sign a contract first”. Should be self evidently wrong.
I mean in the US it’s currently “slavery is okay if you get thrown in jail first”.
So it’s unfortunately not that big of a leap in their logic
That is unfortunately true.
In most places they can’t.
EULAs do not override local laws.
Too. Late.
I’m just confused how anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Surely the strong public backlash could have been easily anticipated.
Legal and PR are different departments.
Most of the time, nobody notices.
Most of the time it’s not as egregious as trying to use a free trial for streaming to force arbitration for wrongful death at an amusement park. I truly can’t imagine any world where this doesn’t blow up because it’s so outrageous.
The world where the government is for the corporations not the people. We’re getting very nearly there, with legal bribery and corporates being considered “people”.
Sure the people might be outraged, but legally outage doesn’t matter and the corporations have a huge power advantage over a single person.
While I generally agree with you, this case is literally an example of how the public’s outrage DOES matter and potentially changed the course of this case, regardless of the legality.
Yes, for now. Their response says a lot as well. “We’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration”
To me, this is them not wanting the arbitration clause itself looked at, and struck down.
So they back off and let this one pass, until they have enough power to not care about the outrage. (And in all the future cases the clause still applies and they continue to fuck over whomever they will)
Remember that south park episode, The human cent-iPad. Yeah.
I was thinking about the simpsons were marge is reading the letter that says by reading it allowed you waive all rights in perpetuity or something.
I fucking hate Disney.
With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach
Yeah if they possessed sensitivity they would’ve never tried this. The only reason they changed their mind is public backlash which would’ve been obvious to foresee.
So they’re myopic and insensitive. Also just cruel. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if they could’ve gotten away with this. It’s straight evil to try it.
That made me so angry!
When this story first came up, an Ars Technica commenter explained that the only thing to do in this scenario is to grieve with the widow, and that it was a ludicrous fight to have. It’s pretty bad for Disney to pretend like they agree with that viewpoint after already putting the widow through more distress.
I’d say actually the only reason they backed down is because they realized they were going to lose and didn’t want to risk their arbitration clause getting struck down in a court.
This was exactly it.
They’ll wait for a case they can win for sure and let court precedent destroy their customers following.
If the reversed happened, it would be a massive win for consumers. The mouse can’t allow that.
Yeah, maybe. It definitely wasn’t for a selfless reason
They said they decided to waive their right to arbitration. They still think that’s their right, fucking sickening.
I think they put it that way because they want to signal how powerful they are while pretending to be ethical
Exactly, i thought of this as a tapping of the holstered guns they’re openly wearing
Yeah, but they’re cap guns in this case. It’s an idiotic legal theory.
I wonder if anyone cancels their Disney+ over this. I know I would if I had it.
I wonder how these stupid attempts ever get pass these supposedly smart executives. You have to be pretty stupid to hold someone to a agreement that was over four years before. The idea that you are bound by a contract for a online service after you cancel it is absurd and downright stupid.
Some kind of legal basilisk where once it sees you, you no longer have any rights ever…
This kind of stuff is actually pretty common in lawsuits. You just throw everything at the wall, because sometimes something sticks. It looks heinous in the light of normal human behavior (and you can say they’re awful for not just settling the lawsuit and making the guy go through this), but once they’ve decided to fight it, you can’t really blame the lawyers for doing their jobs finding what they can to fight it with.
I can absolutely blame them for unethical behavior.
Disney: Guilty of murdering its resort guests as well as the entire Star Wars franchise.
I mean, I dunno about the entire star wars franchise. Bad Batch and Rebels were pretty great.
And Ahsoka. And Andor. And The Mandalorian.
The franchise isn’t what it was. A good show or movie doesn’t mean they haven’t ruined a premier franchise.
I will never knowingly hand money to that corporation or their entities ever fucking again.
Good luck. They own a lot of stuff.
If you don’t step foot on Disneyland or Disneyworld it’s pretty easy to avoid. Just find alternative sources for all their media instead of paying them.
I literally can’t even buy tangerines at the grocery store without giving money to Disney because they printed Mickey or some shit on the bag.
Weird. Where do you live?
we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration
That’s legalese for “We still think that we have that right, we will use it again”.
“Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn’t have everyone so riled up and hating us.”
I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.
That’s legalese for “We still think that we have that right, we will use it again”.
Or for “we don’t want this to get invalidated in court - we need to save it so we can intimidate someone else in the future”.
lol they still think they have the right to arbitration.
They could settle out of cout for an amount they could earn back in under a week. Now they wanna go to court where they’ll end up paying more. Get fucked Disney
I wonder how they concluded this “welp it was worth a try, good job team”
“We’ve decided” lol. Keep telling yourselves that
“Right to arbitration”
