Arbitration clause for wrongful death?
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
83 points (98.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
206 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Believe or not, in today's america... Yes
In yesterday's America too. Look at the Battle of Blair Mountain for instance where corporations have run the show for centuries.
And let's be clear, corporations have been doing this since well before the US existed, or does no one remember Britain's history?
I was being cheekey but yes his fact needs to be stated clearly so younger folks understand the full context!
Thank you for the service!
Does anyone have a TL;DW? Cause I just smashed the transcript into DuckDuckGo AI Chat on GPT-4o and asked it to summarise it and it came up with this
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
In an attempt to weasel out of the liability for the woman's death Disney's lawyers pulled out the forced arbitration clause of the widower's Disney+ subscription.
Meaning they're effectively arguing that because he gives them money to use their service they should be allowed to get away with murder or at least criminal negligence.
I don't think they've realised yet, what a foot-gun this argument is. On top of the obvious moral issues with this line of argument. I mean, this has "give us your firstborn" vibes.
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.
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.
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
I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny
Unless it reaches the Supreme Court and in yet another 6-3 decision the corpos get to loot and pillage more with even less accountability.
It's being taken to court in Florida so I'm not sure it'll even have to make it that far. Can't wait for the corporations with captive user bases to start rolling these arbitration clauses in as a paid service for other corporations.
Sorry, you can't sue ExonMobile for wrongful death, they have an arbitration clause in Comcast's end user agreement for your internet service that they leased. If you wanted to sue ExonMobile you should have not had internet, dummy.
When I was younger, I used to think politics didn't matter and that all politicians are crooks. Now I know that all politicians are crooks AND politics matters and has real-world consequences.
I wonder how much of it is Disney thinks this might actually work versus the ole delay, delay, delay tactic. Probably a little bit of both.
They're gonna do the delay tactic too but this is more insidious.
The amount of money the husband is asking for isn't all that much, pennies to them and in the greater scheme of things this is a nothing suit to them, low stakes. Since it's low stakes they're trying this tactic first to see if it'll stick and create that dangerous precedent. I don't suspect it'll go through but with all these right wing pro capitalist judges it might, and it's worth trying for them since it's such a low stakes suit.
The even bigger irony is that he only sued for $50k. That’s peanuts for big D. Their lawyers probably got more for digging up that arbitration clause.
Disney will happily spend a million to defend against 50k if they have a chance of getting a court decision that their contract is valid for everything associated with the Disney brand
It’s broader than just a Disney+ trial account, it’s part of the whole Disney account, such as when you buy tickets as he did in 2023. Between that and the Florida judge I’m not sure it will get thrown out.
Best case scenario is forced arbitration is just ended. It should be an option, not a requirement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.
I wonder if you can buy tickets in person to avoid making the account.
Except Disney lawyers actually cited the clause the in the Disney+ subscription.
Yes, there's more, but they actually cited Disney+.
I really can't emphasize that enough.
Assuming I read that right, and assuming that's right: Person bought Disney+. Clicked accept in the EULA when they did. Was served food that gave them allergic reaction. Binding arbitration agreement basically means their case against Disney was tried by Disney employees instead of in court. If they pirated content instead of paying, they never would have accepted the EULA, and they would have gotten to sue Disney in a real court.
The video is 2 part, first is the summary of the case and another is about why this argument from Disney is the biggest pro piracy argument.
Basically, the case is about a doctor who had a food allergy and went to a Disney owned restaurant that promised to cater to people with food allergies. The doctor asked staff 5 times to make sure they were aware of her allergies, and all 5 times they said yes. It's literally the most straightforward wrongful death case ever. But then Disney decided they want to fuck more people over, so they made an argument that the case should tossed and move to arbitration because her husband signed up to Disney streaming service on a free trial, years ago. And Disney is ignoring a lot of other facts, like that husband is not the one suing, her estate is, he cancelled the trial before the period ended, so he wasn't even a subscriber at the time. The streaming site has an arbitration clause, but Disney park doesn't so it doesn't even matter. If the case can't go forward, it will be only because US is a corporate-owned shithole, legally it's a moot argument.
As far as piracy, it just highlights how fucked up everything is since if the husband just pirated, DIsney couldn't have used that argument in court. So Disney created a situation now that if you want to be able to sue them for your loved one's death - pirate Disney. It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.
It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.
Devout "Disney families," the kinds with the stickers on their SUVs, may still see that as "stealing the magic." 
“Fuck your magic, free Lilo and Stitch”
I shout as I start downloading Lilo and Stitch from a torrent
:SickoStitch:
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.
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.
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.
Yeah like, lawyers and corporations are messed up, but this really feels like a new low.
AYO how is that legal? What some random commercial company made up can't be above the law, right?
AYO how is that legal?
Capitalism!
:-(
The clause that the user signs upon registering to Disney+ is a binding arbitration clause.
Disney is taking it waaaay further than anyone else by saying a free trial to D+ means any legal interaction with Disney goes to arbitration, not just for D+.
Arbitration clauses in EULAs are bullshit anyway, but if this isn't thrown out of court in a way that kills the concept of being able to sue for damages when every business adds this clause.
If this holds up in court and becomes precedent it will create a lot of people with nothing left to lose with a lot of grudges against these companies. I can't say I would have any sympathy if executives became targets for heinous acts of violence stemming from such an injustice.
This. With digital feudalism now crossing into the physical realm this way, it'd be nice to see people finally sharpening their guillotines.
I gotchu fam.
Disney big boy, doing bad boy stuff. Oopsy killed someone but says it's ok, might get away with it.
Buying stuff now is all a service, go old school and buy paper books and pirate digital stuff. If the person who died at Disney had been a pirate, then Disney would be NOT OK MURDERER.
Yeah I don't understand the logic behind that last one.
If the person who died at Disney had not paid for Disney plus, but instead had pirated what they wanted to watch on Disney plus, they would not have signed the contract with Disney plus. That contract forfeited them the right to sue Disney.