Technology

59587 readers

3037 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber (wdwnt.com)

submitted 3 months ago by otter@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/16155215

Disney has asked a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed earlier this year regarding a woman who passed away due to anaphylaxis after a meal at Disney Springs, citing an arbitration waiver in the terms and conditions for Disney+.

...

In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

In the May 31 motion filed to move the wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, Disney attorneys said that the Disney+ subscriber agreement states that any dispute, except for small claims, “must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

...

Attorneys for Piccolo called Disney’s latest motion “preposterous,” and that it’s “‘absurd’ to believe that the 153 million subscribers to the popular streaming service have waived all claims against the company and its affiliates because of language ‘buried’ within the terms and conditions,” according to Newsday.

The notion that terns agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement.

Brian Denny, Piccolo’s West Palm Beach attorney in a filing on August 2, 2024

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience

Agree 100%

But why weren't all Americans up on the fences against such conditions during recent years?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

As an American there are several factors that weigh in situations like this:

Legal language is a foreign and difficult language to grasp and understand. That’s why lawyers go to school for as long as they do. Yet, citizens are expected to understand it as if it were plain English. So a lot of us don’t read or understand what we’re agreeing to; especially when it’s 10-s of pages long.
Out of sight and out of mind. Unless it happens to us personally, there really is no incentive for us to do anything about it. It’s as, I know, but we’ve been cultivated as a culture with its head in the sand. Hell, even our constitutional right to peaceful protest has been all but stripped away from us.
Financial barriers. It is expensive to fight legal battles, most especially against huge corporations like Disney. A lot of lawyers demand a lot of money up front, and getting our day in court to take years. Corporations can afford to stall. Is plebs can barely afford the initial consult. So unless it’s something considered “in the bag”, it’s probably not financially feasible.

[–] Alue42@fedia.io 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There was a big push a few months ago, a year ago, who knows, Internet time is weird, when McDonald's updated their terms of service on their app and added a clause like this. There were a lot of posts on social media, Reddit, fedi, etc to make sure people didn't agree to the new terms or download the app if they never had it.

There are people that pay attention to it, and even research papers done on it. A lot of the common apps started doing it at the same time. Venmo has it, Pinterest, Facebook, etc. things you wouldn't think of that would have cases like this. But certain ones stick out because of the seemingly more real world complications (I mean, venmo could have fraud, Facebook could have cyber bullying, etc), but McDonald's could have health issues, Disney clearly this is the case.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

shit, many people have their business and income tried to Facebook now. Facebook is constantly getting sued by small businesses after random stupid bullshit that takes them offline for a week.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

But why weren’t all Americans up on the fences against such conditions during recent years?

You're talking about a state that openly supports genocide. I don't think people are paying much attention to anything.