Summary by an AI Essentially, Disney is trying to argue that they can legally kill you just because you agreed to their Disney Plus ToS. Obviously this isn’t going to work in court but it’s insane...
This article discusses a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Disney by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife died after suffering an allergic reaction to food served at a Disney Springs restaurant. Despite her informing the staff of her allergies, she was served food containing allergens, leading to a fatal reaction. Disney is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming Piccolo agreed to mandatory arbitration for all disputes with Disney when he signed up for a Disney+ free trial in 2019. Piccolo's lawyers argue this claim is "preposterous," as it attempts to apply an agreement signed by Piccolo as an individual to a lawsuit filed on behalf of his deceased wife's estate.
Summary by an AI
Essentially, Disney is trying to argue that they can legally kill you just because you agreed to their Disney Plus ToS. Obviously this isn’t going to work in court but it’s insane that they’re even trying, so insane that I had to share
That's beyond the pale. While I think it's incredibly callous, it may actually have a silver lining. If this goes to court rather than being settled, it may severely curb the power TOS arbitration...
That's beyond the pale.
While I think it's incredibly callous, it may actually have a silver lining. If this goes to court rather than being settled, it may severely curb the power TOS arbitration agreements have. It's wishful thinking, but not too far outside the realm of possibility.
I would really love to be able to purchase any good or do any thing without having to sign away my rights to sue the company later. Regular people can't afford lawyers. They're not gonna sue...
I would really love to be able to purchase any good or do any thing without having to sign away my rights to sue the company later.
Regular people can't afford lawyers. They're not gonna sue unless they have a reasonably good chance of winning.
A Boeing machines simulator. Pokemon Go but with planes flying overhead. No, more wide appeal....... and cheaper A quarter for every flight! Also counts for 1/100 of a cent if your friend is flying!
A Boeing machines simulator. Pokemon Go but with planes flying overhead. No, more wide appeal....... and cheaper
A quarter for every flight! Also counts for 1/100 of a cent if your friend is flying!
There is no stronger anti-advertisement for Disney Plus than this, and I will include it in all future rants about streaming providers for as long as I or they live, whichever comes first.
There is no stronger anti-advertisement for Disney Plus than this, and I will include it in all future rants about streaming providers for as long as I or they live, whichever comes first.
As much as I hate Disney - this is not really the argument. They are arguing that the person suing them should have instead used arbitration. Arbitration can still result in damages being awarded...
Essentially, Disney is trying to argue that they can legally kill you just because you agreed to their Disney Plus ToS.
As much as I hate Disney - this is not really the argument. They are arguing that the person suing them should have instead used arbitration. Arbitration can still result in damages being awarded in case of wrongful death claim, but Disney likely hopes the process would be both cheaper to defend, and possibly result in less damages compared to a jury lawsuit.
It's still an outrageous claim though.
Whether handled through litigation or arbitration, wrongful death is a civil matter, not criminal, so any consequence Disney would face in either case would be potential damages they have to pay out if found liable for the wrongful death - no criminal penalties either way.
Also, the person was only asking for $50k in damages, seems crazy Disney wouldn't rather just offer some kind of confidential settlement to sweep this under the rug, rather than drawing this much attention to it with the outrageous abuse of ToS.
But to say "A Disney resort killed them" and "they had an agreement with a Disney Entertainment platform" is like saying "Well, yeah he got run over by the Google maps car but he uses Gmail, so...
But to say "A Disney resort killed them" and "they had an agreement with a Disney Entertainment platform" is like saying "Well, yeah he got run over by the Google maps car but he uses Gmail, so you can't sue them."
Basically, if this defense works, Disney as a monopoly needs to be broken up.
Arbitration is a notoriously biased-in-favor-of-companies process though, and one that shouldn't even be allowed to replace the actual legal process. It's one of the big reasons companies require...
Arbitration is a notoriously biased-in-favor-of-companies process though, and one that shouldn't even be allowed to replace the actual legal process. It's one of the big reasons companies require it. It's an end-run around the legal system that should have never been legal
Additionally, the fact that they think that terms of a streaming service can be applicable also to someone visiting a physical Disney location is asinine. If they'd only argued the "you agreed when you bought tickets" angle, they would at least look a bit less ridiculous, even if (as is true in my case) I think the entire ability for arbitration to be a thing is ridiculous
It’s even stupider than that! “Your wife died, but you signed up for our streaming service, so you’re not allowed to sue us for killing your wife”
Additionally, the fact that they think that terms of a streaming service can be applicable also to someone visiting a physical Disney location is asinine
It’s even stupider than that!
“Your wife died, but you signed up for our streaming service, so you’re not allowed to sue us for killing your wife”
The obvious counter argument being "but I'm not suing as me-who-used-disney+-once, I'm suing as my deceased wife, representing her. Go dig out her disney+ account if you mean it." Pretty sure I've...
The obvious counter argument being "but I'm not suing as me-who-used-disney+-once, I'm suing as my deceased wife, representing her. Go dig out her disney+ account if you mean it."
Pretty sure I've read that plaintiff's lawyer said basically that.
Oh, well an article I read made it seem like the opposite of that is true... sigh. That said, it was relying on an argument from Disney which has been spouting BS from the beginning so that...
Oh, well an article I read made it seem like the opposite of that is true... sigh. That said, it was relying on an argument from Disney which has been spouting BS from the beginning so that doesn't surprise me
To my understanding, in Florida courts there's a category of damages that is essentially "$50k+". It's not a request for $50k, it saying that the desired damages are greater than that.
To my understanding, in Florida courts there's a category of damages that is essentially "$50k+". It's not a request for $50k, it saying that the desired damages are greater than that.
Today in arbitration agreements are unconstitutional. Disney is really trying hard to be a crazy powerful law firm with some entertainment on the side. I really hope that they lose this battle and...
Today in arbitration agreements are unconstitutional. Disney is really trying hard to be a crazy powerful law firm with some entertainment on the side.
I really hope that they lose this battle and are forced to fight this in court.
I feel like common sense will pull through on this one. If it did hold up, I feel like it sets a precedent that any restaurant could just get out of liability for allergy-related incidents just by...
I feel like common sense will pull through on this one. If it did hold up, I feel like it sets a precedent that any restaurant could just get out of liability for allergy-related incidents just by weaseling a terms of use form somewhere into their process. Which, let's be honest, in today's landscape wouldn't be that hard to do.
They don't even need to allow you to opt out. The "opt out" option is to just not dine there. And many restaurants already have a TOS (they don't call it that), but with much clearer terms such as...
They don't even need to allow you to opt out. The "opt out" option is to just not dine there.
And many restaurants already have a TOS (they don't call it that), but with much clearer terms such as "Parties of 6+ will be automatically charged a 18% gratuity" or "Maximum 2 hours seating time".
I really hope you're right. Disney is a juggernaut and I hope they get knocked down a few pegs. I don't care how much the parks make me happy, and how Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie. I...
I really hope you're right. Disney is a juggernaut and I hope they get knocked down a few pegs. I don't care how much the parks make me happy, and how Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie. I will 100% be happy if they get their asses handed to them.
Hell, if this argument prevails, I don't expect the outrage to die down until US law on the matter is changed. Well, that's my hope anyway. Let's hope I'm not too optimistic.
Hell, if this argument prevails, I don't expect the outrage to die down until US law on the matter is changed.
Well, that's my hope anyway. Let's hope I'm not too optimistic.
Emphasis mine. The whole thing is outrageous, but it's somehow much worse knowing that it was from a one month free trial five years ago. I can't imagine how furious this person must be....
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
Emphasis mine. The whole thing is outrageous, but it's somehow much worse knowing that it was from a one month free trial five years ago. I can't imagine how furious this person must be.
Coincidentally, I watched the first hour of the Jenny Nicholson Star Wars hotel video this morning. It just blows my mind that this multi-billion dollar corporation that is capable of wasting millions of dollars on the most obscure efforts to extract additional profits from its consumers would go to such lengths to avoid damages from accidentally killing someone when anyone with half a brain cell could foresee the negative press that would come of it. The callous indifference they have is truly despicable.
But I guess the ends justify the means? I dunno, maybe this can protect them from future lawsuits. Say if some poor bastard dies from a racist animatronic bird falling on his head while he's just trying to suck down a $16 Dole whip. Now his family can't do shit because he watched a season of The Mandalorian? What a time to be alive.
I dunno. Has this changed your willingness to subscribe to Disney+ or go to a Disney park? It has for me. Not "boycott" levels, but just an extra touch of distaste.
I dunno. Has this changed your willingness to subscribe to Disney+ or go to a Disney park? It has for me. Not "boycott" levels, but just an extra touch of distaste.
The claim seems absurd on its face. I am not a lawyer, but the scope of the language in the agreement seems to far exceed and the consideration received (the ability to buy tickets). I wonder if...
The claim seems absurd on its face. I am not a lawyer, but the scope of the language in the agreement seems to far exceed and the consideration received (the ability to buy tickets).
I wonder if they are looking for a test case to establish broader precedent supporting arbitration claims. Even if it seems absurd, if they were successful, they'd essentially be outside the law across their entire organization which would then create a further incentive for corporate consolidation.
Feels like the beginning of the world of Snow Crash. Maybe I will revisit it after I finish Small Gods for Tildes book club.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are laws that regulate the scope of what can be specified in Terms of Service. Of course over here in Europe we have more rigid consumer protection...
I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are laws that regulate the scope of what can be specified in Terms of Service. Of course over here in Europe we have more rigid consumer protection regulations than our capitalistic friends across the pond, but as far as I know some limitations still exist. Basically a contract that's negotiated on an individual basis can be much more extensive than a contract that's a boilerplate agreement for a large number of people. As for the specifuc regional laws for this specific case I would have to look it up, but in Germany, Austria, and most other European countries a claim like that would almost certainly be out of scope.
I definitely think this is also the case in the US, at least for an extreme case like this. But I guess Disney's lawyers are probably salaried, so it probably doesn't cost them more to throw...
I definitely think this is also the case in the US, at least for an extreme case like this. But I guess Disney's lawyers are probably salaried, so it probably doesn't cost them more to throw everything and the kitchen sink at their defense.
It sounds so ridiculous it almost feels like a bar bet. "Hey I'll bet you $1 that I can get at least to the 9th circuit claiming that arbitration for one service applies to everything our company...
It sounds so ridiculous it almost feels like a bar bet.
"Hey I'll bet you $1 that I can get at least to the 9th circuit claiming that arbitration for one service applies to everything our company does."
I've got a worse one: A cyclist hit a pothole and was seriously injured because of the unmaintained road. He sued the city, claiming that his injuries were due to the negligence regarding the road...
I've got a worse one: A cyclist hit a pothole and was seriously injured because of the unmaintained road. He sued the city, claiming that his injuries were due to the negligence regarding the road maintenance. He lost the case because he had signed a liability waiver with AIDS Lifecycle, a charity ride, and he was on a training ride at the time. So a liability waiver can apply not just to the company you signed the waiver with, but anyone else.
Reading between the lines of the article, I guess it's because the city had cooperated with the organizers to provide the "racetrack", that racetrack being on public roads. Basically, when he fell...
Reading between the lines of the article, I guess it's because the city had cooperated with the organizers to provide the "racetrack", that racetrack being on public roads. Basically, when he fell it wasn't "on public roads" that everyone could access, it was on a closed off track that the city provided for this purpose only under the condition of said waiver. That.... kind of makes sense to me structurally, but to what degree an event organized can hide behind a waiver like that if their equipment isn't fit for purpose is a different matter.
Writing legal documents is one of the use cases where AI is the least fit for purpose, and you'd have to be incredibly ignorant about the law and/or how generative AI works to even think of trying...
Writing legal documents is one of the use cases where AI is the least fit for purpose, and you'd have to be incredibly ignorant about the law and/or how generative AI works to even think of trying it. Then again, some lawyers already got in trouble for trying to file a pleading written by ChatGPT that cited non-existent cases sooo...
Complete agreement from my side.... for now. Legal language is incredibly close to formal logic in many ways. Which LLMs suck at, for now, as they lack any kind of correct&consistent reasoning...
Complete agreement from my side....
for now.
Legal language is incredibly close to formal logic in many ways. Which LLMs suck at, for now, as they lack any kind of correct&consistent reasoning mechanisms. Once we bake those into LLMs, legal texts might become a lot more viable.
If legal language were more precise and closer to formal logic, it would've been easy to do with much older rules-based language models. If it were less precise and closer to natural language,...
If legal language were more precise and closer to formal logic, it would've been easy to do with much older rules-based language models. If it were less precise and closer to natural language, LLMs would handle it better. But it falls right in the perfect area to be difficult for either to do well.
The passenger claimed to have been misled on the airline’s rules for bereavement fares when the chatbot hallucinated an answer inconsistent with airline policy. The Tribunal in Canada’s small claims court found the passenger was right and awarded them $812.02 in damages and court fees.
This kinda reminds me of the boneless chicken bone incident a few weeks ago. There will be a ruling that flies in the face of reasonable consumer expectations, then a flood of people will "well...
This kinda reminds me of the boneless chicken bone incident a few weeks ago. There will be a ruling that flies in the face of reasonable consumer expectations, then a flood of people will "well actually" the shit out of it.
It is always very surreal when I see an article on real life events that would not look out of place on The Onion. I want to be optimist so maybe this will bring some scrutiny to ToS that are...
It is always very surreal when I see an article on real life events that would not look out of place on The Onion.
I want to be optimist so maybe this will bring some scrutiny to ToS that are never all read and cannot be read by average person because there is simply not enough time to both actually read them and to take up law as a hobby to actually understand them.
And also how would it ever be reasonable to apply terms of ToS to a completely different segment of the company.
It's amazing how if they're being sued, they're different entities with limited liabilities, and yet when it's convenient, a 5 year expired EULA from a different side of the business is fine
It's amazing how if they're being sued, they're different entities with limited liabilities, and yet when it's convenient, a 5 year expired EULA from a different side of the business is fine
Disney is big enough, old enough, powerful enough, that I suspect their corporate culture is pretty bureaucratic. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if their official (internal) policy is to...
Disney is big enough, old enough, powerful enough, that I suspect their corporate culture is pretty bureaucratic. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if their official (internal) policy is to fight any wrongful death or injury claim simply because on the grand scale, it works in their favor and saves them money most of the time.
In that sense, I almost can’t help but wonder if that’s what we’re seeing here: Corporate demanding the case go to court, but legal knowing there is no case. Disneys lawyers need to show up with some kind of argument in their defense if they want to keep their jobs and not be immediately be laughed out of court. But if there isn’t any good argument in their favor, they have to come up with…well, some reason. Even if it’s a lame one that they know won’t work.
That’s what I hope this is; Lawyers “just following orders” and going through the motions because corporate policy demands it. Otherwise, if this is a completely earnest attempt by Disney, and they really intend to throw their weight behind it, I’m extremely concerned. The case precedent this would set would be disastrous and dystopian.
It does seem likely that not everyone in the house of mouse know what the other quarter million employees are doing. But Counter: any company that is so dumb the lawyers would rather follow...
It does seem likely that not everyone in the house of mouse know what the other quarter million employees are doing. But
Counter: any company that is so dumb the lawyers would rather follow instructions than to go back and say, "we got nothing here except a long expired EULA, it's gonna look bad, our advice is you settle", then it's still 100% the company's fault.
Oh absolutely. My previous comment is not an attempt to excuse bad behavior, merely to explain it and counter some of the hyperbolic statements I’ve seen on other sites regarding this story...
Oh absolutely. My previous comment is not an attempt to excuse bad behavior, merely to explain it and counter some of the hyperbolic statements I’ve seen on other sites regarding this story (looking at you Reddit).
I know where you're coming from but people following orders resulted in the Holocaust. Little Eichmanns can do as much harm as enthusiastic evil. No matter the motivation or the reasons, this case...
I know where you're coming from but people following orders resulted in the Holocaust. Little Eichmanns can do as much harm as enthusiastic evil. No matter the motivation or the reasons, this case is insanely evil and shows that these corporations don't see us as human.
Yeah. Each gear of the orphan crushing machine is only responding in a sensible fashion to the pressures on it. Yes, the orphans get crushed, but why are you blaming the gears?
Yeah. Each gear of the orphan crushing machine is only responding in a sensible fashion to the pressures on it. Yes, the orphans get crushed, but why are you blaming the gears?
My point isn't focusing on moralizing about the personal evils of the lawyers (although they are certainly evil), but the fact that at some important level it doesn't matter whether Disney did...
My point isn't focusing on moralizing about the personal evils of the lawyers (although they are certainly evil), but the fact that at some important level it doesn't matter whether Disney did this out of banal evil of bureaucracy, because it's still extremely evil and harmful.
They are arguing that they should legally be allowed to kill you if you use their services. This is not something that should be overlooked "because it's due to bureaucracy". The fact they even thought this was a viable tactic shows how inhumane and evil the system is. It doesn't matter whether they are arguing for killing people out of some political sadism or out of some profit-driven motive. The fundamental thing is they are arguing on legal grounds that they should be allowed to kill you. If they succeed, you are dead either way.
Technically, they're arguing that if you use their service and they kill you, they should be able to decide their own punishment. It's a distinction without a difference, though.
Technically, they're arguing that if you use their service and they kill you, they should be able to decide their own punishment. It's a distinction without a difference, though.
This is how I envision the most toxic aspects of law come from, people being forced to twist the law into some convoluted way to fit a demanded defense and somehow it works and no one cares about...
This is how I envision the most toxic aspects of law come from, people being forced to twist the law into some convoluted way to fit a demanded defense and somehow it works and no one cares about the consequences.
Honestly this might be something to email their team and let them know. email bob Iger directly and the president of D+. Their executive admin teams actually respond if you reply to the form...
Honestly this might be something to email their team and let them know. email bob Iger directly and the president of D+. Their executive admin teams actually respond if you reply to the form letter, and they keep track of how many people actually care about this kind of stuff (even if they still do the opposite). But if enough people let them know they're going to lose out on profit from people, they may change, that is, if you feel the need to explicitly tell the company.
Though, Disney is doing a really, really good job of ruining all good will they have with the majority of their fanbse lately. This is just another nail in the coffin, but it all remains to be seen how much they will get punished for such an evil take on this case.
I really wonder what Disney is thinking here. Others have already pointed out that this is a losing argument likely to bring negative publicity. But I would also add that this is exactly the sort...
I really wonder what Disney is thinking here. Others have already pointed out that this is a losing argument likely to bring negative publicity. But I would also add that this is exactly the sort of behavior that encourages regulators to scrutinize your company.
If a normal person would be outraged that the terms & conditions of a streaming service would bind you in perpetuity to arbitration for all Disney services, can you imagine what the antitrust head of the FTC thinks?
According to Disney’s terms of use, which must be accepted when using Disney+, signees are agreeing to waive their rights to any potential class-action lawsuits or jury trials. The terms are also used when purchasing theme park tickets from the Walt Disney website and when creating an ESPN+ account, which is owned by Disney. [...]
Tangsuan, who was a 42-year-old physician at NYU Langone Hospital, collapsed 45 minutes after the meal. She self-administered her EpiPen, a life-saving medication used to decrease an allergic reaction.
A witness called 911.
She was taken to hospital, where she later died of “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” the lawsuit states.
Summary by an AI
Essentially, Disney is trying to argue that they can legally kill you just because you agreed to their Disney Plus ToS. Obviously this isn’t going to work in court but it’s insane that they’re even trying, so insane that I had to share
That's beyond the pale.
While I think it's incredibly callous, it may actually have a silver lining. If this goes to court rather than being settled, it may severely curb the power TOS arbitration agreements have. It's wishful thinking, but not too far outside the realm of possibility.
I would really love to be able to purchase any good or do any thing without having to sign away my rights to sue the company later.
Regular people can't afford lawyers. They're not gonna sue unless they have a reasonably good chance of winning.
The big brain move would be to offer some free but popular service to entice users to sign away their rights. Here comes Boeing Calorie Counter®!
Boeing+, the free streaming service that has every tv or movie with a gun or a plane in it.
A Boeing machines simulator. Pokemon Go but with planes flying overhead. No, more wide appeal....... and cheaper
A quarter for every flight! Also counts for 1/100 of a cent if your friend is flying!
Introducing: The Boeing Fart Noises App!
There is no stronger anti-advertisement for Disney Plus than this, and I will include it in all future rants about streaming providers for as long as I or they live, whichever comes first.
As much as I hate Disney - this is not really the argument. They are arguing that the person suing them should have instead used arbitration. Arbitration can still result in damages being awarded in case of wrongful death claim, but Disney likely hopes the process would be both cheaper to defend, and possibly result in less damages compared to a jury lawsuit.
It's still an outrageous claim though.
Whether handled through litigation or arbitration, wrongful death is a civil matter, not criminal, so any consequence Disney would face in either case would be potential damages they have to pay out if found liable for the wrongful death - no criminal penalties either way.
Also, the person was only asking for $50k in damages, seems crazy Disney wouldn't rather just offer some kind of confidential settlement to sweep this under the rug, rather than drawing this much attention to it with the outrageous abuse of ToS.
But to say "A Disney resort killed them" and "they had an agreement with a Disney Entertainment platform" is like saying "Well, yeah he got run over by the Google maps car but he uses Gmail, so you can't sue them."
Basically, if this defense works, Disney as a monopoly needs to be broken up.
Arbitration is a notoriously biased-in-favor-of-companies process though, and one that shouldn't even be allowed to replace the actual legal process. It's one of the big reasons companies require it. It's an end-run around the legal system that should have never been legal
Additionally, the fact that they think that terms of a streaming service can be applicable also to someone visiting a physical Disney location is asinine. If they'd only argued the "you agreed when you bought tickets" angle, they would at least look a bit less ridiculous, even if (as is true in my case) I think the entire ability for arbitration to be a thing is ridiculous
It’s even stupider than that!
“Your wife died, but you signed up for our streaming service, so you’re not allowed to sue us for killing your wife”
The obvious counter argument being "but I'm not suing as me-who-used-disney+-once, I'm suing as my deceased wife, representing her. Go dig out her disney+ account if you mean it."
Pretty sure I've read that plaintiff's lawyer said basically that.
Disney Springs doesn't require tickets. It's more like an outdoor mall, anyone can just go there and eat at any of the restaurants.
Oh, well an article I read made it seem like the opposite of that is true... sigh. That said, it was relying on an argument from Disney which has been spouting BS from the beginning so that doesn't surprise me
Yeah, my father-in-law has lunch there like, every day. He would absolutely not do that if there was an entrance fee.
To my understanding, in Florida courts there's a category of damages that is essentially "$50k+". It's not a request for $50k, it saying that the desired damages are greater than that.
Today in arbitration agreements are unconstitutional. Disney is really trying hard to be a crazy powerful law firm with some entertainment on the side.
I really hope that they lose this battle and are forced to fight this in court.
I feel like common sense will pull through on this one. If it did hold up, I feel like it sets a precedent that any restaurant could just get out of liability for allergy-related incidents just by weaseling a terms of use form somewhere into their process. Which, let's be honest, in today's landscape wouldn't be that hard to do.
"By dining at our restaurant, you agree to our TOS, you can opt out letter sent through priority mail" something like that?
They don't even need to allow you to opt out. The "opt out" option is to just not dine there.
And many restaurants already have a TOS (they don't call it that), but with much clearer terms such as "Parties of 6+ will be automatically charged a 18% gratuity" or "Maximum 2 hours seating time".
I really hope you're right. Disney is a juggernaut and I hope they get knocked down a few pegs. I don't care how much the parks make me happy, and how Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie. I will 100% be happy if they get their asses handed to them.
Hell, if this argument prevails, I don't expect the outrage to die down until US law on the matter is changed.
Well, that's my hope anyway. Let's hope I'm not too optimistic.
Emphasis mine. The whole thing is outrageous, but it's somehow much worse knowing that it was from a one month free trial five years ago. I can't imagine how furious this person must be.
Coincidentally, I watched the first hour of the Jenny Nicholson Star Wars hotel video this morning. It just blows my mind that this multi-billion dollar corporation that is capable of wasting millions of dollars on the most obscure efforts to extract additional profits from its consumers would go to such lengths to avoid damages from accidentally killing someone when anyone with half a brain cell could foresee the negative press that would come of it. The callous indifference they have is truly despicable.
But I guess the ends justify the means? I dunno, maybe this can protect them from future lawsuits. Say if some poor bastard dies from a racist animatronic bird falling on his head while he's just trying to suck down a $16 Dole whip. Now his family can't do shit because he watched a season of The Mandalorian? What a time to be alive.
Just more reasons to sail the seas, I guess.
Does negative press even affect a company the scale of Disney in the long term, though?
I dunno. Has this changed your willingness to subscribe to Disney+ or go to a Disney park? It has for me. Not "boycott" levels, but just an extra touch of distaste.
The claim seems absurd on its face. I am not a lawyer, but the scope of the language in the agreement seems to far exceed and the consideration received (the ability to buy tickets).
I wonder if they are looking for a test case to establish broader precedent supporting arbitration claims. Even if it seems absurd, if they were successful, they'd essentially be outside the law across their entire organization which would then create a further incentive for corporate consolidation.
Feels like the beginning of the world of Snow Crash. Maybe I will revisit it after I finish Small Gods for Tildes book club.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are laws that regulate the scope of what can be specified in Terms of Service. Of course over here in Europe we have more rigid consumer protection regulations than our capitalistic friends across the pond, but as far as I know some limitations still exist. Basically a contract that's negotiated on an individual basis can be much more extensive than a contract that's a boilerplate agreement for a large number of people. As for the specifuc regional laws for this specific case I would have to look it up, but in Germany, Austria, and most other European countries a claim like that would almost certainly be out of scope.
I definitely think this is also the case in the US, at least for an extreme case like this. But I guess Disney's lawyers are probably salaried, so it probably doesn't cost them more to throw everything and the kitchen sink at their defense.
It sounds so ridiculous it almost feels like a bar bet.
"Hey I'll bet you $1 that I can get at least to the 9th circuit claiming that arbitration for one service applies to everything our company does."
I've got a worse one: A cyclist hit a pothole and was seriously injured because of the unmaintained road. He sued the city, claiming that his injuries were due to the negligence regarding the road maintenance. He lost the case because he had signed a liability waiver with AIDS Lifecycle, a charity ride, and he was on a training ride at the time. So a liability waiver can apply not just to the company you signed the waiver with, but anyone else.
What‽ That's preposterous! How can a liability waiver between an individual and AIDS Lifecycle possibly be binding to a third party as well?
Reading between the lines of the article, I guess it's because the city had cooperated with the organizers to provide the "racetrack", that racetrack being on public roads. Basically, when he fell it wasn't "on public roads" that everyone could access, it was on a closed off track that the city provided for this purpose only under the condition of said waiver. That.... kind of makes sense to me structurally, but to what degree an event organized can hide behind a waiver like that if their equipment isn't fit for purpose is a different matter.
Are we going to have to worry about AI generated TOS agreements now?
Writing legal documents is one of the use cases where AI is the least fit for purpose, and you'd have to be incredibly ignorant about the law and/or how generative AI works to even think of trying it. Then again, some lawyers already got in trouble for trying to file a pleading written by ChatGPT that cited non-existent cases sooo...
Complete agreement from my side....
for now.
Legal language is incredibly close to formal logic in many ways. Which LLMs suck at, for now, as they lack any kind of correct&consistent reasoning mechanisms. Once we bake those into LLMs, legal texts might become a lot more viable.
If legal language were more precise and closer to formal logic, it would've been easy to do with much older rules-based language models. If it were less precise and closer to natural language, LLMs would handle it better. But it falls right in the perfect area to be difficult for either to do well.
Sounds like as much a liability for companies as consumers. There’s this precedent already:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/19/what-air-canada-lost-in-remarkable-lying-ai-chatbot-case/#
Ooh, so all we have to do is prompt an AI chatbot to give incorrect answers and then get money? Sounds too easy. Lol
This kinda reminds me of the boneless chicken bone incident a few weeks ago. There will be a ruling that flies in the face of reasonable consumer expectations, then a flood of people will "well actually" the shit out of it.
It is always very surreal when I see an article on real life events that would not look out of place on The Onion.
I want to be optimist so maybe this will bring some scrutiny to ToS that are never all read and cannot be read by average person because there is simply not enough time to both actually read them and to take up law as a hobby to actually understand them.
And also how would it ever be reasonable to apply terms of ToS to a completely different segment of the company.
It's amazing how if they're being sued, they're different entities with limited liabilities, and yet when it's convenient, a 5 year expired EULA from a different side of the business is fine
Update:
Disney has dropped this claim
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr7r9djxj0do
More specifically, they aren't dropping the claim, merely choosing to not try pushing it in this particular instance:
How humble of them to waive their completely legitimate right to arbitration this time...
That triggered me, not gonna lie
Disney is big enough, old enough, powerful enough, that I suspect their corporate culture is pretty bureaucratic. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if their official (internal) policy is to fight any wrongful death or injury claim simply because on the grand scale, it works in their favor and saves them money most of the time.
In that sense, I almost can’t help but wonder if that’s what we’re seeing here: Corporate demanding the case go to court, but legal knowing there is no case. Disneys lawyers need to show up with some kind of argument in their defense if they want to keep their jobs and not be immediately be laughed out of court. But if there isn’t any good argument in their favor, they have to come up with…well, some reason. Even if it’s a lame one that they know won’t work.
That’s what I hope this is; Lawyers “just following orders” and going through the motions because corporate policy demands it. Otherwise, if this is a completely earnest attempt by Disney, and they really intend to throw their weight behind it, I’m extremely concerned. The case precedent this would set would be disastrous and dystopian.
It does seem likely that not everyone in the house of mouse know what the other quarter million employees are doing. But
Counter: any company that is so dumb the lawyers would rather follow instructions than to go back and say, "we got nothing here except a long expired EULA, it's gonna look bad, our advice is you settle", then it's still 100% the company's fault.
Oh absolutely. My previous comment is not an attempt to excuse bad behavior, merely to explain it and counter some of the hyperbolic statements I’ve seen on other sites regarding this story (looking at you Reddit).
I know where you're coming from but people following orders resulted in the Holocaust. Little Eichmanns can do as much harm as enthusiastic evil. No matter the motivation or the reasons, this case is insanely evil and shows that these corporations don't see us as human.
Yeah. Each gear of the orphan crushing machine is only responding in a sensible fashion to the pressures on it. Yes, the orphans get crushed, but why are you blaming the gears?
My point isn't focusing on moralizing about the personal evils of the lawyers (although they are certainly evil), but the fact that at some important level it doesn't matter whether Disney did this out of banal evil of bureaucracy, because it's still extremely evil and harmful.
They are arguing that they should legally be allowed to kill you if you use their services. This is not something that should be overlooked "because it's due to bureaucracy". The fact they even thought this was a viable tactic shows how inhumane and evil the system is. It doesn't matter whether they are arguing for killing people out of some political sadism or out of some profit-driven motive. The fundamental thing is they are arguing on legal grounds that they should be allowed to kill you. If they succeed, you are dead either way.
Technically, they're arguing that if you use their service and they kill you, they should be able to decide their own punishment. It's a distinction without a difference, though.
This is how I envision the most toxic aspects of law come from, people being forced to twist the law into some convoluted way to fit a demanded defense and somehow it works and no one cares about the consequences.
I was half thinking about getting Disney+ but honestly I'm not very sold on this "Disney is legally allowed to kill its customers" part of the deal.
Honestly this might be something to email their team and let them know. email bob Iger directly and the president of D+. Their executive admin teams actually respond if you reply to the form letter, and they keep track of how many people actually care about this kind of stuff (even if they still do the opposite). But if enough people let them know they're going to lose out on profit from people, they may change, that is, if you feel the need to explicitly tell the company.
Though, Disney is doing a really, really good job of ruining all good will they have with the majority of their fanbse lately. This is just another nail in the coffin, but it all remains to be seen how much they will get punished for such an evil take on this case.
I really wonder what Disney is thinking here. Others have already pointed out that this is a losing argument likely to bring negative publicity. But I would also add that this is exactly the sort of behavior that encourages regulators to scrutinize your company.
If a normal person would be outraged that the terms & conditions of a streaming service would bind you in perpetuity to arbitration for all Disney services, can you imagine what the antitrust head of the FTC thinks?
Update:
Disney drops bid to stop wrongful death lawsuit over Disney+ terms
And still:
This is PR management, not an actual change to their stance vis a vis arbitration.