this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024

367 points (98.9% liked)

News

22839 readers

3690 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

367

Disney reverses course on bid to block wrongful death lawsuit by widower who had Disney+ (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 229 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

The reputational damage that team of lawyers did to the company massively outweighs the cost of a settlement. I personally will never do business with a company who thinks the EULA or TOS of one service indemnifies them from egregious negligence in a completely different line of business. This was simply beyond the pale.

Edit to note: Despite the title, they aren't actually reversing course, they still claim they have the right to force arbitration, they are just choosing to waive it in this instance. If you do business with Disney, you are a fool.

[–] RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de 42 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Of course they are just waving it. It is too powerful a tool for future issues to give away. But obviously it is morally completely disgusting and corrupt.

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 38 points 3 weeks ago

We need laws banning forced arbitration

[–] inbeesee@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

When this happens again the outrage will be less, and they will be more willing to dunk on these people. Can you imagine your close family or friends killed and a ToS blocking justice for the killers?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Most people won't have heard of this. But even if they did, it's Disney. They own so much media that even if you did avoid everything Disney-branded, you might still find yourself watching something from Marvel movies, National Geographic Partners, Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX, ABC news, ESPN, Hulu... I can go on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Probably can't avoid everything Disney, but I will try avoiding situations where they could physically harm me or my family.

[–] Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com 148 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Notice they still claim arbitration is their right, that the streaming agreement is still valid, but would rather appease the masses to mitigate bad publicity.

[–] feannag@sh.itjust.works 90 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

They also don't want to test the legality of forced arbitration on something like this, where precedent against it might be set.

[–] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

Especially when the judge will have seen the outrage and likely be influenced by it.

I think you’re very right.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago

That was my first thought... They initiated it for the precedent, they must have had reason to believe they wouldn't get the ruling they wanted.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If not this, then what are they waiting for to actually use this?

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The right case where there isn’t popular support for the plaintiff.

Bonus points if the case has more of a grey area such as the plaintiff agreed to the TOS while doing something similar with another business unit and closer in time to when the incident occurs.

I.E they sign the TOS for a Disney cruise and the incident happens a week later at the park.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Courts should keep a tally record of bogus defences and charges that a plaintiff or defendant brings for each client...

[–] anubis119@lemmy.world 97 points 3 weeks ago

Disney states they "Waived their right to arbitration". A weasely way of seeming to agree with the public sentiment, but actually avoiding having this ruled on right now so they can fine tune the language and try again later.

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 73 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Too fucking late

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Too fucking little

[–] DmMacniel 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Too fucking

[–] CaptainSkipper 11 points 3 weeks ago

fuck

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

When you see [Everyone Hated That] pop up after your last choice, and you panic and try to load a previous save, but the game remembers what you already did.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

hmm, that would be an interesting feature for a RPG game. Are there any games that have that feature? Like some anti savescumming?

[–] Sainteven@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Pathologic 2. When you die it applies the consequences to all of your saves all you can't go back and change it

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, that's a good point, I didn't think of it this way. I felt that Pathologic 2 handled it pretty well, because the first time I died, I was confused at how it framed the consequences (instead of a straightforward "you died! Load earlier save?", you get a conversation with an NPC that explains some of the consequences, albeit somewhat obtusely). The actual consequences of death felt surprisingly forgiving, given all I've heard about Pathologic (especially the first few deaths).

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The original animal crossing had something like that. If you turned off the console without saving, a mole named Resetti or something like that would rant at you about how you aren't supposed to do that. The rant would get longer the more times you turned off the console without saving.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

DUHduh dun dun DUN

[–] Gaspar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

Undertale had this. It allowed you to reload the older save and undo what you did, but it kept a second, hidden save file that you couldn't easily erase.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I understand that that annoying Undertale game did this.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I agree. A little fourth wall breaking even to go with it. "You thought you could just reload? Sorry mate, some things can't be so easily undone."

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 5 points 3 weeks ago

That would make an awesome Deadpool game LOL

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

If executed well, the shock of a moment like that would be sublime.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago

They should rule on it anyway, and strike these arbitration clauses from the face of the earth. That's why Disney is backing down, not because of "oh, the humanity".

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people were expecting this. I don't know what their lawyers were thinking, $50k absolutely is absolutely nothing to Disney.

Whereas, I've seen this story everywhere and no one is defending Disney. This makes them look horrible. You clicked "I accept", so now you can't sue them for an in-person issue at one of their parks? What are you talking about?? I realize they might want to set a precedent, but I don't think any judge would ignore public sentiment about this and side with Disney. So now they look awful for absolutely no gain...

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Beyond making them look horrible, they were marching towards a court ruling against the forced arbitration clause.

Once there is a precedent for the clause being unenforceable, the clause ceases to be a deterrent to legal action - every claim would be litigated at the very least to settle the question of whether arbitration is required in a specific case.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Memes save the world yet again.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 3 weeks ago

Public shaming worked on this one, but how many other terrible takes by the corporation are unspoken? Many.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Only $50K? What happened? Did she say she was allergic to something and thy served it to her anyways?

[–] anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

"...in excess of $50k." This language is defined by the Florida Wrongful Death statute and means at least $50,001 but can be much more.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Got it. Thanks!

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes. And $50k is way too low.

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 weeks ago

Only $50K?

What is the cost of a human life? As little as those in power can pay for it.

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Too late.

I'm sure, I'm not the only one who definitely isn't going to try out Disney+ anytime soon.

After I had to seperate my Netflix account from my nieces and my sister, I actually planed to switch to Disney for a while to see what they offer, but not anymore.

[–] anas@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s not too late for the actual reason they withdrew: They’re not at risk for forced arbitration to be challenged in court.

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I just meant the damage in the public eye had been done.

Of course there are other legal implications, but I wasn't talking about that.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder what becomes of the Hulu people being merged into Disney? Do they auto sign the new terms by simply continuing service?

[–] norimee@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

In such cases you normally get an upated terms of service notification.

If you are in the EU new regulations now demand, that the costumer actively has to agree with updated terms. Otherwise its normally just a notification with a small print ->if you don't object you automatically agree.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

I was gonna hire the mafia to kill my cheating bitch wife but now I just need to watch Lilo and Stitch without pirating it. They're heroes if you ask me.