In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron's ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like "purchase" to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.

Which isn't helping enough

[–] matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

Disney lawyers are using an arbitration clause in their Disney account agreement to try to dismiss a lawsuit over a death caused by allergies at Raglan Road. You should be able to find the articles from there.

It's a bit simplistic to say that it's specifically a Disney+ issues.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 43 points 2 months ago (6 children)

To summarize differently, their argument goes that if you signed up for a trial of Disney+ (or some other such service), you agreed to an arbitration clause as part of the terms of service.

They are arguing that the arbitration clause therefore applies to everything Disney-related, even if it's a service unrelated to Disney+.

I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny and will likely get tossed as unenforceable for being an unconscionable contract. Still, Disney sucks for even attempting such a maneuver, and it equally sucks that the US legal system is in such a state that they think this is a possible avenue for success.

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I wonder how much of it is Disney thinks this might actually work versus the ole delay, delay, delay tactic. Probably a little bit of both.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago

They're gonna do the delay tactic too but this is more insidious.

The amount of money the husband is asking for isn't all that much, pennies to them and in the greater scheme of things this is a nothing suit to them, low stakes. Since it's low stakes they're trying this tactic first to see if it'll stick and create that dangerous precedent. I don't suspect it'll go through but with all these right wing pro capitalist judges it might, and it's worth trying for them since it's such a low stakes suit.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (24 replies)