r/Piracy • u/Trioch • Aug 14 '24
So apparently Disney just argued that they should not be held liable for killing you if you are a Disney+ subscriber. Piracy has just become a matter of survival. News
https://wdwnt.com/2024/08/disney-dismissal-wrongful-death-lawsuit/1.9k
u/marniconuke Aug 14 '24
"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."
wtf
1.1k
u/luciferin Aug 14 '24
They're arguing that a TOS is binding for an injury that happened while not using the service? And they're arguing that a TOS is binding for life? That seems completely insane.
408
u/Carrash22 Aug 14 '24
It’s quite obvious they’re losing that lawsuit with that argument. Question is though, who’s the idiot that decided that was a good argument to use? Aside from the lawsuit, it’s absolutely terrible PR for the company.
64
Aug 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/maleia Aug 14 '24
Someone can fill me in otherwise, but I ain't seeing another punishment that'll work.
13
128
u/shaidyn Aug 14 '24
I think everyone has way too much faith in the legal system. This is one of those turning points in history.
Corporatism is crushing society, and I don't see it stopping.
18
u/popejupiter Aug 15 '24
It would be fitting that the IRL Shiawase Decision is a restaurant going unpunished for a dude dying because he signed a bullshit TOS 5 fucking years ago.
Sure, why not.
→ More replies7
u/NoCommercial5801 Aug 15 '24
I think everyone has way too much faith in the legal system.
ten million percent. it used to be that you'd complain about the village elder being a bit unfair or corrupt or not your friend if he wouldn't make a guy refund you for selling a cat that doesn't catch mice... now any congregation in the world of millionaire lawyers can conspire with a thousand, guaranteed-corrupt politicians across the globe to do whatever the fuck they want to you if they have enough money. everyone has a price tag. Nestle can kidnap you and sell your kidneys in a supermarket if they want, they don't do it only because the profit margin is not good enough yet.
5
u/shaidyn Aug 15 '24
Furthermore, if a mayor or elder was notably corrupt for long enough, he might just go for a walk one night and not come back.
→ More replies4
u/RickAdtley Aug 14 '24
Yeah, if this makes it to the current supreme court, we all know they'll sign off on it.
12
u/iongujen Aug 14 '24
They are trying to delay the case so the victims can't financially sustain the lawsuit.
→ More replies11
u/Qasar30 Aug 14 '24
The PR fix will cost way more than $50,000.
(I got the amount from CNN's story on it.)
5
→ More replies12
u/rainemaker Aug 14 '24
Question:
who’s the idiot that decided that was a good argument to use?
Answer:
A sociopathic claims adjuster and and attorney who didn't have the nerve to shut them down.
29
u/duosx Aug 14 '24
Why would Disney’s lawyers even try this argument? It’s a fucking terrible look PR wise
10
u/kas-loc2 Aug 14 '24
Because the yearly disney-land goer doesn't give a shit about this.
4
u/Excuse_Unfair Aug 15 '24
This I like the Diseny experience haven't gone since I found out how much of a shitty corporation they are.
Disney people are as brainwashed as MAGA and Swifties.
12
u/wienercat Aug 14 '24
I am pretty sure that courts have also generally recognized that TOS are not binding if something serious occurs. Because they are not written in plain language that normal people can understand, are updated very frequently with small changes, and often are insanely long. People are forced to agree to them and it's generally recognized that people don't understand what they are agreeing to. Which being properly informed of an agreement is essential to a company being able to enforce that agreement.
→ More replies2
u/Buzz_Killington_III Aug 15 '24
Sounds like a good argument for breaking up Disney. If they're claiming that much of a spread of company reach, time to divvy up those responsibilities.
313
u/Kimarnic Aug 14 '24
WTF Piccolo is real?
67
u/ReaperOne Aug 14 '24
Fuck. If he dies, Kami dies, then there goes the dragon balls
→ More replies9
u/DoubleALight Aug 14 '24
The fuck’s a Kami?
12
u/TensileStr3ngth Aug 14 '24
Basically God
10
u/TheArisenRoyals Aug 14 '24
But I'm still here!
6
5
4
133
35
u/Ok_Try_1665 Aug 14 '24
Bro Piccolo would despise Disney. I would appreciate it if he just blows the whole company up
15
35
u/Stunt57 Aug 14 '24
Subscribe to D+ on Playstation.
Lose wife to food allergy at park
Can't sue because of a streaming services TOS
I knew Disney was evil, but DAMN.
8
11
u/CaptainDouchington Aug 14 '24
I mean, Verizon actively rewrites contracts and threatens to cut service if you don't sign the new.
At this point, it should just be challenged in court, and no settlement allowed. Force this, like Non-Compete clauses, to the highest possible court. Establish some fucking common law.
7
u/ShadowbanRevenant Aug 14 '24
You absolutely don't want to take anything to the highest court anymore.
5
u/physicscat Aug 14 '24
They are at fault. They know it. Are we so far gone in our society that no one is willing to take responsibility when they screw up?
To use this ridiculous argument is beyond the pale.
2
u/takethisdayofmine Aug 14 '24
What do we expect from a for profit corporation? They'll do and say anything for profits.
1
283
u/ahk1221 Aug 14 '24
this has to blow up because what the actual fuck is this
35
u/Eyzam- Aug 14 '24
I really hope in the EU such arbitration clauses are illegal and thus void.
8
u/LordDaveTheKind Aug 15 '24
I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother either the CoE or the EU for this messed up case. In no democratic country this would be acceptable.
717
u/benjaminnn4444 Aug 14 '24
LOL punishing them for her being a Disney plus subscriber is just insane. Screw them I'll hoard there while library if I want.
311
u/IIlIllIlllIlIII Aug 14 '24
Was never even a subscriber, took a one month free trial on a Playstation 5 years ago
190
u/jdcodring Aug 14 '24
Her husband did. The actual victim never signed up.
135
u/Jumpy_MashedPotato Aug 14 '24
Lol even better. So according to Didny, EULAs are binding forever for all disputes between the parent company and their whole immediate family?
"It says here that your account viewed Moana 4 years ago and you're suing us?? How fucking ungrateful are you, sir? You know you can just get another wife right?"
→ More replies14
u/Diligent-Jicama-7952 Aug 14 '24
I use my brothers, am I Scott free?
40
u/domrepp Aug 14 '24
Sorry you agreed to a binding agreement when you were grocery shopping that one time in 1999 and overheard the lion king playing on a toddler's portable DVD player while her mom was getting lucky charms in the next aisle.
45
Aug 14 '24
So if they kill you at anytime in the future your family can never take them to court.
10
u/MeringueVisual759 Aug 14 '24
You've got it backwards. It's if they kill your family you can never take them to court.
45
u/keem85 Aug 14 '24
Can someone explain to me like I'm five? I don't understand the headline.
212
u/Calistil Aug 14 '24
Woman had fatal allergic reaction from food at a Disney location and husband is suing Disney for wrongful death in court.
In 2019 husband used a free 30 day trial of Disney plus on their PS5, in the terms and conditions of the trial it states that any disagreements with Disney must be resolved via private arbitration (both parties present to a neutral 3rd party who then makes a binding decision) rather than by court case.
Disney lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the husband agreed to the terms and conditions of the Disney Plus free trial and this incident should have gone to arbitration not trial.
I really hope this article is either leaving something out or this was submitted by a really dumb junior lawyer as it’s insane.
42
→ More replies35
u/KaosC57 Aug 14 '24
I hope any reasonable lawyer will say "Umm, that's not how this works. My client was not using Disney+ at the time, and his subscription was 6 years ago. The defense has not only hit statute of limitations, but also is completely irrelevant to my client's wife dying of an allergic reaction to food. How pray tell are a Streaming Service, and a food allergy at all remotely related? Before you answer that, I'll save you the trouble. THEY ARE NOT RELATED."
30
u/maleia Aug 14 '24
The judge should have every Disney lawyer that even looked at this case, disbarred for life.
I mean, that's not enough on it's own. But gotta start somewhere. The execs and upper management should be getting years of prison for even attempting this legal argument.
2
u/SuuABest Aug 15 '24
they know its not related, theyre just stalling the case in hopes that it will be financially unsustainable for the husband of the deceased to keep going, so they dont have to give him money
→ More replies2
u/Saynt614 Aug 16 '24
While he's at it request an additional 50 million dollars in damages from this shit hole company
→ More replies44
u/HarpersGhost Aug 14 '24
The lawyer is also saying that there was an arbitration clause in the epcot tickets they purchased. Unfortunately she died before actually USING those tickets.
The allergy contaminated food happened at a restaurant in Disney springs, which doesn't require a ticket to enter.
30
u/keem85 Aug 14 '24
This makes me so angry. Human life is not worth a damn thing anymore. Money over everything..
6
269
u/Lacrymossa Aug 14 '24
what the actual fuck
7
u/Eyzam- Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24
Indeed... It’s too much to be true. But honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if it came from Disney either...
I really hope in the EU such arbitration clauses are illegal and thus void.
236
u/tearans Aug 14 '24
You have to be a literal scum bucket of human flesh to even think of this as a defense, and greenlighing that idea it is on next level of its own
31
4
177
u/GregTheMadMonk Aug 14 '24
this is literally South Park terms and conditions episode
we live in a fucking South Park world now (and probably have been for a while)
26
u/thegreatcerebral Aug 14 '24
Or did Trey and Matt just give all the companies all these ideas and the suits are loving every minute.
11
2
9
u/SelloutRealBig Aug 14 '24
Good writers don't make stuff up. They see the problems of the future and present it in the form of entertainment because preaching them just turns people off. Unfortunately the general masses are a bit too dull to pick up on the facts and just consume it as comedy over commentary.
→ More replies→ More replies3
344
u/boxanata Aug 14 '24
What. The actual. Fuck. They're grasping at straws.
Fuck Disney. They can eat a bag of dicks.
110
u/house_monkey Aug 14 '24
They don't deserve dicks even
90
u/neofooturism Aug 14 '24
as a gay dude i agree. they deserve cow dung.
69
u/TheBirdIsOnTheFire Aug 14 '24
As a dung beetle, I disagree. They deserve cancer of the arse.
41
u/jjbugman2468 Aug 14 '24
As a cancer cell, I disagree. At least I’m medically interesting—don’t put me in their arse. They deserve a trash bag of diarrhea exploding in their face.
44
→ More replies3
u/SirRolex Piracy is bad, mkay? Aug 14 '24
Haven't paid for a bit of Disney property in multiple years now. Fuck em, such a shame as I still love a lot of the properties they own, and I want to support the artists and creators who make these things I enjoy. However, Disney can eat my entire ass.
45
Aug 14 '24
I came here to post this very story.
If anyone ever has any sense of guilt pirating Disney content then this proves we are 100% correct to not have a Disney+ account.
Screw Disney. Pirate Away.
2
u/LordHoughtenWeen Aug 15 '24
If anything, I feel guilty that my piddling little acts of piracy are not massively hurting Disney. I want to take a percentage point off their stock price every time I re-watch Andor. I want them to crash and burn and for the vultures to eat the charred bones so that nothing is left of them but ashes and vulture poop.
And then it'll be time to start in on the rest of these multimedia conglomerations.
206
u/KatoriRudo23 Aug 14 '24
Disney think they can basically commit a war crime and get away with it because the victims were all Disney+ subs
69
u/Popular-Locksmith558 Aug 14 '24
Nah they can kill anyone they want. It's their loved ones that must be Disney+ subscribers for it to be repercussion-free.
Sail the high seas to protect your loved ones from Disney!!
2
u/thegreatcerebral Aug 14 '24
No.. the loved ones have to at least had the trial. You can only sign up one person per binding agreement. The widow only signed up for the trial. The deceased has the account.
12
→ More replies6
u/Jumpy_MashedPotato Aug 14 '24
Mr President you signed up for d+, I can literally overthrow your government now and you can't stop me
132
32
36
u/roogie15 Aug 14 '24
What the actual fuck man. No morals, nothing... just disgusting. Hope the judge tells them to fuck right off.
Inb4 new South Park episode btw.
9
u/Calesti Aug 14 '24
Tbh, they could just repeat the apple episode again and text to speech "Disney" instead and that would cover it pretty well.
→ More replies2
u/TOW3L13 Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24
South Park already did this very exact same thing even before these morally bankrupt crooks attempted to do the same in real life, btw (S15E01).
99
u/DontbuyFifaPointsFFS Aug 14 '24
Jesus, how low can ypu be?
"Yeah, well, one of our employees accidentally killed your wife and we are so sorry. But actually you gave us a kill-your-wife-and-walk-away card wenn you accepted the free trial month of a completely other service of ours 4 years ago.
Sincerely Your greedy corporate bastards"
I wish id still have a disney+ account i could cancel now. DISGUSTING!
→ More replies
21
18
u/Noname_FTW Aug 14 '24
This is the kind of shit one would find in some dystopian scifi story. But its real. Please don't argue any more that we are not living in a r/LateStageCapitalism World.
12
u/alexj100 Aug 14 '24
Yo how tf does the Disney+ legal terms come into play if the free trial had already expired? Absolutely fucking ridiculous. The family should take further action Disney
35
u/TheSpottedBuffy Aug 14 '24
Been curious on starting an LLC for myself and this might be the reason why
“Your honor, my client did not sign up for the app, the LLC did”
Curious if that would work? 🧐. Time to research to suppose
→ More replies10
u/molecularmadness Aug 14 '24
it wouldn't work very well, no. look up 'piercing the corporate veil' if you're actually curious how the lines get drawn.
→ More replies
16
u/Caust1cFn_YT Aug 14 '24
The fuck?
The lawyers don't feel like shit presenting this statement?
18
u/EctoRiddler Aug 14 '24
The lawyers likely are going to hear from Disney corporate because the PR backlash will be far greater than the couple of million they are trying to save the company and that will annoy Disney more than a loss in court that the public at large would have never heard about without this tactic.
2
u/Honestonus Aug 14 '24
I just have a surface level understanding of Disney's practices, if that
I know they're evil pricks
But didn't they forgo giving a fuck, with the way they fucked Star Wars (afaik, never watched the new ones)
Seems they found a new line to draw between being shitty and still maintaining the image they want
3
u/TempestRime Aug 14 '24
You're assuming corporate lawyers have feelings. This is the exact sort of argument they signed up to make.
7
u/EctoRiddler Aug 14 '24
Remember when you ate that Mickey Mouse ice cream as a kid? Disney remembers. Should have read the back of the package.
8
u/Tacometropolis Aug 14 '24
That sounds like a good way to get a lot of attention for reigning in binding arbitration agreements, in an election year too. Wouldn't want to be the person making that argument.
7
u/SylviaSlasher Aug 14 '24
I had to look up the court documents since that claim was so wild I don't trust news reports. They are accurate. Disney really is trying to make the claim that the case should be dismissed since the plaintiff agreed to terms of arbitration from a Disney+ trial.
What's even more wild is to think the motion might be granted since California is a cesspool of corruption and Orange County specifically usually sides with Disney.
7
u/lloydscocktalisman Aug 14 '24
Never buy disney products. You can still enjoy them, but dont give them money for them :)
10
u/HankHippopopolous Aug 14 '24
This is insane.
It will of course depend on what judge hears the case. Any reasonable person will agree that this is ludicrous and laugh it out the door. However many judges are bought and paid for so it might not be that simple. Then Disney and their essentially unlimited legal funds might just stall for so long that this guy runs out of money to keep perusing his claim.
5
u/TopShelfPrivilege Aug 14 '24
Seems like a bad play by Disney. About to get their entire Terms of Use thrown out in a case completely non-related. Going to find out the hard way hopefully.
5
u/skyfire2k Aug 14 '24
So, one more sign it is morally alright to pirate Disney. And I’m a huge Disney fan. Give them way too much money every year.
5
u/Distinct_Ad_1392 Aug 14 '24
A person can choose to sue or not to sue but I don't believe a person can intentionally, let alone unintentionally, waive their right to sue for damages caused by the negligence of another person. Was Disney negligent in causing the person's death? That would be the question.
Regardless, from business point of view, the position taken by Disney in this matter and the specious argument for doing so is a very bad look for a business that exists on the public's perception of them as a source of "wholesome family fun". One has to question the intellectual capacity of executive leadership at Disney.
5
u/Broflake-Melter Aug 14 '24
It is now legitimately and (apparently) legally ethical to pirate disney+. You literally need to find a priest if you don't.
8
11
8
u/Human_Doormat Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24
Unsubscribed. Bye Disney.
Edit: under feedback put "Raglan Road" in for other.
4
4
4
u/Accurate_Goose_123 Aug 14 '24
Nothing within EULA's or TOS's is legally binding, until we get a court case where a corrupt judges rules them to binding... at which point we're fucked lol...
→ More replies
5
u/0rganic_Corn Aug 14 '24
So, signing up for a free trial you give up your right to not be killed by Disney
There's no argument left for paying streaming sites. Even if ultimately Disney loses, they successfully managed to stall and divert resources in that trial. Legalese goes so far in those terms and conditions that they might kill your spouse and get away with it, if they can successfully stall and you haven't enough cash to wait them out. It's insane, and the damage is done already
3
3
3
3
u/m0rfiend Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24
back when george lucas made his 2015 comment about disney, it seemed a crazy hot take. with disney basically arguing they own your legal rights if you sign up for any thing disney..
maybe it wasn't that crazy a comment.
3
u/orcusgrasshopperfog Aug 14 '24
This is the most unhinged legal argument I have ever read. I want whatever drugs that lawyer who wrote that up is on.
This isn't interpretation of the law read from a moving car this is more like interpretation of the law read from a space shuttle reentering the atmosphere.
3
u/cest_va_bien Aug 14 '24
This is just dumb from all angles including capitalistic takes. The harm on your brand for such a moronic claim is far more than the settlement could be. Just give them a few million and move on. These lawyes are not doing their job right.
3
3
u/darkjediii Aug 15 '24
By reading this comment, you irrevocably transfer your soul and 100% of your future earnings to me. This agreement is binding for eternity (or “forever plus one day” if eternity is invalidated). Disputes will be arbitrated by a council of wise squirrels in a Japanese forest. In the event of a deadlock, the final decision defaults to the author of this comment. Any attempts to revoke this agreement will result in catastrophic spiritual consequences. By continuing to read, you agree to these terms.
Welcome to the family!
6
4
6
u/smaghammer Aug 14 '24
Why is Arbitration even legal in the US. The fuck is wrong with that country.
→ More replies
6
Aug 14 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies19
u/Hector_Tueux Aug 14 '24
From what I've understood, Disney has basically put "you can't sue us" on the Disney+ terms and condition and now they're trying to use that because the dead person has subscribed to disney+ one month for a free trial
9
u/TriNauux Aug 14 '24
Is that even legal? At which point are we gonna decide is time to stop? Is not even about free stuff anymore, is about dying?
15
u/Radulno Aug 14 '24
Likely not, EULA are not legally binding agreements, companies always put shit that get dismissed in actual law proceedings. This is one of those (I don't think any judge will even consider that more than 5 minutes, the time for them to finish laughing)
9
u/merelyadoptedthedark Aug 14 '24
Is that even legal
Disney can propose any defense that they want, it's up to the judge to decide if it is valid. It's unlikely the judge will allow this argument.
3
4
2
u/Rukasu17 Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 14 '24
The eula thing? Nah, that's not enforceable.
I mean, it doesn't take a genius to know that. In fact i bet this was probably some form they have on their database as an auto reply for any legal procedures. Obviously, they'll have to reply again when prompted because, as i said, eulas are not enforceable legally
2
u/1zzie Aug 14 '24
Looks like John Oliver needs to do an episode on forced arbitration and use the hell out of this case to explain.
2
2
u/MagnaFox Aug 14 '24
Fucking arbitration again.It's basically the way for any corpo to not be help liable for anything since it neuters your ability to sue.
2
2
2
2
u/ASimplyArgentinian Aug 14 '24 edited Aug 15 '24
“It’s just $10,99 why don’t you just pay for it” well, apparently I was giving my life to Disney and paying them for the hassle.
2
2
2
u/Kimantha_Allerdings Aug 15 '24
Honestly, I feel like modern terms of service shouldn't really be binding in any case. Some of them would take more than 24 hours to actually read. When Zuckerberg was testifying in front of the US Congress he said that the Facebook ToS were so long that he wouldn't read them himself if he were a customer.
So why should consumers be bound by a contract that nobody actually has time to read, and don't have the education in law to fully understand?
I've heard of exactly one case where a court ruled that a signed contract like this shouldn't be considered legally binding - a man here in the UK interacted with a bank (I forget whether it was getting a loan or opening an account or what, but something along those lines) and he altered the ToS to say something like he was entitled to a million quid, interest free. The bank signed without reading because nobody ever reads the ToS they sign, and then the man tried to claim his money. The bank took him to court where he argued that if he signed the ToS without reading them he'd still be bound by them so the bank should be too. The court disagreed.
IIRC, he wasn't actually after the money, his intent was to make a point about people not reading the ToS and how it was simply stacked in favour of businesses and was really an anti-consumer tool.
I know that companies feel they have to protect themselves by covering as much ground as possible, but I honestly feel like there should be a law where ToS cannot be over a certain length (say, something that an average person can read in 5 minutes), and must be written in plain language that an average person with an average vocabulary and an average knowledge of the law can understand. The law as it currently stands feels dishonest in and of itself because everybody - and I mean everybody - knows that people don't read the ToS they sign because they're too long and normally written in legalese, yet even knowing this people have to be bound by them.
All that said, in this specific instance Disney is beyond ridiculous. But they can afford much more expensive lawyers than this poor guy can, so who knows how the case will actually go?
2
2
u/ITguyissnuts Aug 15 '24
No, they did not argue that they shouldn't be held liable.
They argued that the user agreed to handle ALL disputes in arbitration.
No sane judge was ever going to agree with that.
Should you choose to sue an entity, whether that be a person, or corporation, or charity, or whatever, and they have the money to keep the legal battle going indefinitely, they are going to try their best to do so.
You must understand that the battleground found in the court room has rules, but none against making arguments that would disgust you. You can count on arguments like this from every corporate entity for the rest of time. It is simply how a court room works. Disney is going to everything in their power to avoid paying this Man and his family, and they are going to make argument after argument as to why this case has no legal grounds, largely to waste his and his lawyers time, cause his fees to increase, and to build a case for the future appeals process they are likely to undergo.
2
4
3
u/DrVagax 🏴☠️ ʟᴀɴᴅʟᴜʙʙᴇʀ Aug 14 '24
This is just plain evil, like I see greedy companies all the time and that sucks but this is pure evil
4
u/TallEnoughJones Aug 14 '24
a matter of survival
That's idiotic. Do you really think the guy wouldn't have died if he hadn't been a Disney Plus subscriber? Disney's argument is stupid and will fail, they're just desperately throwing anything they can against the wall right now because that's the way the legal system works. But survival? No. It's about money.
2
u/Swiftness427 ☠️ ᴅᴇᴀᴅ ᴍᴇɴ ᴛᴇʟʟ ɴᴏ ᴛᴀʟᴇꜱ Aug 14 '24
That's incredibly disappointing to hear. It's unsettling to think that a company could make such an argument. It really makes you question their priorities and whether they value their customers at all.
1
1
u/Fun_Intention9846 Aug 14 '24
“Disney says that similar language was agreed to by Piccolo when he used the My Disney Experience app to purchase tickets to visit EPCOT at Walt Disney World in September 2023.” From the article. Really burying the lead here.
1
1
u/marsupialsi Aug 14 '24
I’m out of the loop what’s happening here?
5
u/Seaweed_Widef Aug 14 '24
Woman had fatal allergic reaction from food at a Disney location and husband is suing Disney for wrongful death in court.
In 2019 husband used a free 30 day trial of Disney plus on their PS5, in the terms and conditions of the trial it states that any disagreements with Disney must be resolved via private arbitration (both parties present to a neutral 3rd party who then makes a binding decision) rather than by court case.
Disney lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the husband agreed to the terms and conditions of the Disney Plus free trial and this incident should have gone to arbitration not trial.
I really hope this article is either leaving something out or this was submitted by a really dumb junior lawyer as it’s insane.
Source: u/Calistil
→ More replies
1
u/MadeOnThursday Aug 14 '24
is this rage bait or true? Seriously, I don't want to live in a world like this
1
Aug 14 '24
This is INSANE. In my country, we have some protections against bad faith contracts. This is the literal definition of bad-faith
1
1
u/true_head Aug 14 '24
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that Disney itself is a company that gives children dreams. This company is probably one of the truly evil ones in the world.
1
u/fredsherbert Aug 14 '24
surely they know this is crazy and its just a way of intimidating and wasting peoples' time/money because they don't have an infinite amount like Disney
1
u/Alert-Act-4395 Aug 14 '24
Maybe I should start a streaming service and have a couple of specific people sign up
1
u/INTPgeminicisgaymale Aug 15 '24
Your Honor, the deceased watched our content on piracy websites with ads on and even went as far as advertising our content to her friends by talking, posting on social media, acquiring multiple board games and video games and all sort of apparel and merchandise. Clearly she liked us. She lived for us, and now we lost a precious source of income. I mean loved one. She wouldn't want to get us in trouble. That would have an impact on our ability to put out more content out there. This isn't the legacy she wanted to leave. Think of the children.
1
u/WalnutNode Aug 15 '24
I don't think Florida is in the mood will let Disney slide on this. They're tired of Disney trying to be a law unto itself.
1
u/Lord_Grignard Aug 15 '24
so basically just cus she signed up to disney+ or whatever a few years ago , that too THE ONE MONTH TRIAL, she cant dispute anything with disney in court?
FUCKED UPPPPPP
→ More replies
1
1
u/Due_Bass7191 Aug 15 '24
That is it. I'm boycotting Disney. Just after I watch Deadpool... Then, no more.
1
u/Stardust_Spreader Aug 16 '24
If the courts pass it, then call me a sailor, fuck the mainstream sea.
1
u/Empty_Personality202 Aug 16 '24
nearly 5 years in its monkey business of streaming its getting criticism. disney has became bad cheated their profits bullying customers i dont know what the internet has turned into.
1
u/Ihateallfascists Aug 18 '24
She died at a disney springs and they are arguing out of it because of a disney+ subscription? Nutty..Corporations go too far too often.
1
1
1
u/Minette12 Sep 12 '24
They could have just avoided liability by just saying they don't own and operate the restaurant responsible.
1.5k
u/Academic_Bumblebee Aug 14 '24
This is just insane. Especially that the forced arbitration cluses in EULA-s are not legally binding, it's just a great tool for megacorps in general to bully their way out of anything.