Not The Onion

11810 readers

577 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

375

Disney+ terms prevent allergy death lawsuit, Disney says (www.bbc.com)

submitted 4 weeks ago by smeg@feddit.uk to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.

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

[–] _bcron@lemmy.world 145 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

You and Disney agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes (including any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates)

I have a hard time believing Disney could convince anyone that a death from a food allergy is even tangentially related to a streaming subscription. Probably one of those bad faith efforts to drag it out and incur huge fees for the plaintiff in hopes of settling

[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 37 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Apparently the same clause is in the Disney account terms used to buy the tickets to the park

Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.

Which would hold more water than the clause in the Disney+ terms (that articles on the subject focus on way too much just for clickbait)

Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chambers, says the terms in the Disney+ trial are a "weak argument for Disney to rely on".

However, he says, the clause in the ticket purchase from 2023 may be a stronger case, "as there is a similar arbitration clause".

But anyway, it's really insensitive from Disney to try to arbitrate such a tragic incident.

[–] Die4Ever@programming.dev 31 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

used to buy the tickets to the park

the restaurant was not in a ticketed park, it was in Disney Springs which is a freely accessible public area

https://longisland.news12.com/disney-asks-court-to-dismiss-wrongful-death-lawsuit-of-long-island-doctor

https://maps.app.goo.gl/2HeE7BypniAENg1M6

[–] BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com 7 points 4 weeks ago

Oh, I wasn't aware of this since the BBC article does not mention it. Then Disney's attempt to arbitrate based on the account terms barely holds water.

load more comments (3 replies)