People don't realize how important the outcome of this court case will be.
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9644 readers
466 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
Man, america is wild place. Do you have any laws there?
Only the ones that are written for and protected by corporations. Everything else is the wild Wild West.
Most Americans would be offended by your comment, and that’s why we don’t have nice things. We’re very, and I can not stress this enough, VERY stupid.
It's the law that the businesses get to screw you.
Oh yeah and every infant is assigned an assault weapon at birth.
Oh yeah and every infant is assigned an assault weapon at birth.
Man, here voenkom has to find you and give you povestka to assign you assault rifle.
It will likely be dismissed as Disney wasn't the company responsible for staffing or managing the restaurant.
Which sucks, because I desperately want to see Disney take another massive L in the spotlight of the mainstream news cycle.
It's gonna be nuts.
It's certainly going to cause a reaction.
Disney probably doesn't care if this argument holds in a court of law. If it does, jackpot, they now have a get out of jail free card due to case law. Their main objective is to wear down the plaintiff financially or mentally so that they drop the case.
Arbitration clauses must be made illegal
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.
Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.
That's not the same. You still don't have any legal claims against the hospital or the doctor. You can't sue your surgeon, because you missed, say another week of work because of some unexpected bleeding.
load more comments
(3 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.
Jesus... You're not wrong. That's fucking crazy. You're NOT wrong. Wtf is wrong with my country?
Is there any good magnet urls to Disney's whole collection?
Google this hash info: EF4211584F37CA70A4B1A2E47E7E833C79ABACBA
load more comments
(1 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.
Disney allowed to kill your spouse because you watched the mandalorian
Not the worse trade off. As long as we aren’t including Season 3.
load more comments
(1 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'm not exactly sure that it DOES contradict the law, which is the problem.
My hope for this case is that it sets the precident of crushing their bullshit terms of forced arbitration before this happens again and deems terms like these unenforcable. To date, I'm not aware of anyone challenging this in court - meanwhile every company in the country is adding terms like these to their software agreements. So let's throw this shit out for good.
load more comments
(3 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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I can't believe nobody has mentioned the fact that it looks like Mickey is pissing over the disney logo in this image
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
There's no way this gets dismissed, right? The precedent this would set would be unimaginable...
I dunno, it depends on how many supreme court justices disney can afford I guess.
Piracy is the safe option then. Got it.
Piracy, watching through a friend, BluRays & DVDs, hard copies & actually owning something as opposed to...perpetually renting access, owning nothing & being happy about it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
yeah, that work like a trap.
Sign up for one service with arbitrate ... that would apply for all service.
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.
A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like "BB Wolf's Sausage Co.", and where "Guest Services" is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld's property rules.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
(6 replies)
Now THAT is bad PR. Wow. Going to be hard to top it.
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!
Onion? No? Christ...
Just 'murica.
view more: next ›