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.”

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    282
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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. They are very much still working under the assumption that a subscriber clicking “I Agree” to watch The Mandalorian waives any right to trial against any business unit of Disney Corp for any reason.

    Absolutely despicable.

    • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Arbitration contracts, especially in click-through licenses, are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

        • TipRing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Agreed. It’s pretty telling that none of these corporations would accept an open ended arbitration clause in their dealings with any other corporation.

        • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Arbitration contracts especially in click-through licenses are 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.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              3 months ago

              If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.

    • Rooki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      103
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yep, exactly.

        They’re asserting and graciously waiving a “right” they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I’m waiving my right to steal from Disney.

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They’ll set this precedent eventually. It will only take a few tries and especially against someone who cant fight back.

    • trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    225
    ·
    3 months ago

    “We got caught by the public, and we want to keep this excuse possible in the future. So we’re dropping it from now so the court doesn’t set a legal precedent that will fuck us over.”

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 months ago
    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 source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220228/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-subscription-terms
    https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224277/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-waiving-arbitration

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    A disney SWAT team kicked down my door and scream-asked me at gunpoint if I’d seen the Mandalorian.

    I hear it’s been happening a lot.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    3 months ago

    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”.

    • Bojimbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      3 months ago

      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”.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      “Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn’t have everyone so riled up and hating us.”

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Disney: Guilty of murdering its resort guests as well as the entire Star Wars franchise.