It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
I think we should be allowed to opt in to arbitration from within the public judicial system, once charges have already been brought forward. Then people will only agree to it when it's legit just saving time/money, and won't change the likely ruling.
A public system designed for everyone can never be as cheap as one specific to the issue/people at hand. It just needs to always be available as a fallback.
I think what you are mentioning is basically how settlements work.
I just can’t see how an arbitration company that is selected by a company will ever have the incentives to side with consumers.
I can only see arbitration working when both sides have equal leverage. Large company vs large company, citizen vs citizen. And both sides must have a say on which arbitration company is selected.
What I'm mentioning will frequently lead to settlements, but the choice of whether or not to use arbitration is typically made before there's any case.
Both sides don't have equal leverage today because of an information asymmetry market failure. The cost to the consumer to read the ToS (and research its arbitrators) for everything they buy is unreasonably high, while it costs the company very little. If consumers only had to research arbitrators after the fact, then the company would have a strong incentive to agree to a fair one, avoiding the public courts.
Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.
That's not the same. You still don't have any legal claims against the hospital or the doctor. You can't sue your surgeon, because you missed, say another week of work because of some unexpected bleeding.
Uhm what are you talking about? Why would I want to sue my surgeon?
EDIT: The reasons why I would not sue my surgeon are:
It is not a private legal matter, but a matter of adequate services rendered.
The question of liability can be better answered by a specialized team of doctors that review my case than a jury.
Legal action is an obstacle made to disenfranchise those that cannot afford counsel, which is why the US loves it and we generally don't.
We have laws that demand reasonable judgement. Hence I cannot make a claim for damages due to some unrelated reason and they cannot evade guilt by the same tactic.
If the surgeon did something illegal, this would be a different matter.
The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.
Points were made, that it's still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.
You were then told that's besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.
It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.
We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.
Your tattoo example doesn't make sense to me. The tattoo shop could require an agreement limiting liability without denying access to the courts.
Are you saying that it's reasonable to be allowed to waive your right to access the legal system when getting a tattoo but not when accessing streaming services?
no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
My country has heavy immunity for doctors. I think we can't sue them, like it's automatically a regional arbitration hearing, and at no point can one get "pain and suffering" but only "recoup of costs to fix as much as possible" kind of stuff.
So if the doc removes the wrong foot, he'll lose his job, and you'll get a pegleg or something like that.
Hmm. Just reading that makes me think the rate of vindictive doctor slayings is too low for that to be true.
Every time you get surgery, you sign a waiver basically saying "there's an inherent risk to this, we're not liable unless someone really screws up". And that's exactly what Disney is trying here - just using an absolutely bonkers interpretation of it.
It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
Why would it be rasonable?
Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn't happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it's reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there's always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it's far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there's at least one thing that's never reasonable, and that's arbitration itself.
Arbitration is someone making a decition which can't be amended after it's made. It can't be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn't allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let's return to your two claims of unreasonability:
It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There's nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn't fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.
You need to reform lawsuits at the same time. The US legal system allows lawyers to take cases on contingency, getting paid only if they win. In most other countries this isn't allowed. In addition, in most other countries it's much easier for the winner of the lawsuit to recover the legal costs of the lawsuit from the loser.
The result of this is that the US has a lot more nuisance and extremely speculative lawsuits. Under those conditions, a binding arbitration setup is more reasonable. It means that neither side is spending tons of money on lawyers. If you reform the legal system so that only people who stand a decent chance of winning are willing to sue, then definitely get rid of binding arbitration.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
For many parents, it's quicker to pay $10 for Disney+ than to load up a torrenting site and download the torrents every time. As a former piece of shit bratty toddler, I can understand why many parents would rather pay.
And laws that do protect the little guys get ignored by our right-wing courts. For instance, the courts quit enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act because, in the words of Scalia, "it makes no economic sense."
A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like "BB Wolf's Sausage Co.", and where "Guest Services" is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld's property rules.
That has nothing to do with whether it was actually in a park though, in which case one could argue about accepting terms based on a park ticket purchase. Since it's not in a park, and needs no ticket, that shouldn't apply.
Also, since you want to talk about branding, Raglan Road is a very well known street in Dublin, Ireland. It's not really Disney-related, just Irish. Heck, looking into it a tiny bit more, the pub seems like it might even be independently owned and operated, not actually owned or operated by Disney at all. Their website doesn't even mention Disney anywhere on it that I can find, which would lead one to assume it's not actually Disney- related. It just happens to be located in a space operated by Disney. In which case I don't think Disney would be liable at all anyway for an independent business, which seems a bit confusing why their lawyers wouldn't just go that route instead, unless part of the agreement to be there is to be covered by Disney's legal team.
If it is under the Disney umbrella, I'd bet that Disney World, Disney Springs, the Raglan Road Irish Pub, and Disney+ are all legally separate companies. They may be wholly owned by the Walt Disney Company under their umbrella, but technically separate companies. Legally, this matters a lot, even if it's all under the Disney brand. Even if we don't really care about that distinction as consumers.
If it is under the Disney umbrella, I’d bet that Disney World, Disney Springs, the Raglan Road Irish Pub, and Disney+ are all legally separate companies.
Probably, but is a customer expected to know that? What if you're inside Disney World itself and you're injured on the It's a Small World ride, and then Disney says "oh, that's not us, that's owned and operated by 'It's A Small World LLC'".
Part of the attraction of the whole Disney Springs area is that it's under the Disney umbrella. As a visitor, you know that the company is going to keep everything clean, make sure that everything is up to high standards, etc. You're probably going to pay a bit more to go to a store / restaurant there than a typical strip mall, but in exchange you get part of the Disney experience. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that will also include restaurants that produce high quality food and that ensure that someone's allergy needs are met.
FWIW, I don't think the judge is going to go for it. Disney's lawyers are the most bloodthirsty son of a bitch lawyers on Earth, but just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will accept it.
This is why those ToS are 71pages long. I don't think there are many good judges out there anymore, but I hope the one that reviews this case goes absolutely ape-shit on Disney. There is a legal tradition of harsh punishments for criminals in examplar cases to set detterents to future crimes. The same needs to be done to reel in these corporations.
Disney said late Wednesday that it is “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss but stressed the Irish pub is neither owned nor operated by the company. The company’s stance in the litigation doesn’t affect the plaintiff’s claims against the eatery, it added.
“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company wrote in an emailed statement.
For some reason that word "merely" just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it's peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.
...Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights...
Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.
The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they're all false in order to win the law suit.
So it'll look like:
I didn't do it.
Even if I did do it you can't prove it was me.
Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn't be liable.
Even if I was liable this has to be settled by arbitration.
So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it's worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they'll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.
No, it isn't. It's saying, look, we had nothing to do with this because it was outside of our reasonable control, and even if we were somehow in control of this independent entity, this is the wrong venue because they agreed to this arbitration clause.
Is that arbitration agreement reasonable? Personally, I lean towards no, but that's mostly because arbitration is almost always in favor of the corporation. If it was truly a neutral process? Then yeah, I'd mostly support it, because it's pretty easy for a defendant like Disney to bury any single plaintiff. (OTOH, it makes class action suits much harder.) Is it even valid, since it's the estate that's suing Disney, rather than her husband, and the estate didn't exist when the tickets were bought and so couldn't have agreed to the terms? Hard to say.
The problem is just going to court and saying "we have nothing to do with it" is both expensive and can end up with them going to trial. If they believe they have nothing to do with the incident, this is their easiest route.
Not trying to defend a big corp like Disney (they have plenty of money and can easily cover it), but I was just involved in a suite brought against me and in the end even though it would have been an "easy win" for us, it still would have cost us more money to fight it out in court than it was to just settle. And that's assuming the trial went our way which is never a guarantee.
I sincerely hope this shit blows up. May corporations providing "free" services forever be associated with literal devil's contacts. Piracy is no longer just about sticking it to the man, it's about freedom!
It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.
They're using this chance since they know they can easily dispute it to try and set precedent for terms and services being used in situations that don't make sense.
The judge will probably slap it down and they can still say that they don't have anything to do with the restaurant and just walk away free, but it's worth trying cause there's plenty pro corpo judges now a days.
You probably think you're clever but being pedantic is just being insufferable about stuff everyone else understood from context.
That doesn't make you clever, that just shows everyone that you need to be seen as clever.
Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.
Please. You are correct but you need to be informed and eloquent about it. Google “enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices,” according to the most recent judge to rule against them (it was a 270 page ruling so I can't blame you for not reading it).
Intellectual property rights do not a monopoly make. Unfair practices (like requiring webpages to conform to a new standard like google amp or not get boosted in search) make the monopoly.
How the fuck is it not punishable to write stuff into those contracts that contradict the law (obv. i mean this past a certain company size). Like for real.
I don't know what the exact agreement here is, but such things are very often not enforceable. You can't have someone sign their rights away. You can have them sign the document, but that document will be worthless in court and will not be respected. Those are more to scare people and discourage them from suing the company.
I'm not exactly sure that it DOES contradict the law, which is the problem.
My hope for this case is that it sets the precident of crushing their bullshit terms of forced arbitration before this happens again and deems terms like these unenforcable. To date, I'm not aware of anyone challenging this in court - meanwhile every company in the country is adding terms like these to their software agreements. So let's throw this shit out for good.
Disney winning sets a precedent that will ultimately lead to vigilante justice by necessity.
If Disney wins, then our “justice” system does not work and cannot be trusted, thus leading people to doing what they need to just to survive when every company starts using that clause to prevent us from holding them responsible for anything at all.
And if that's the case, I guess I need to dig out my mask and cape, and get back to work as a crime fighter.
The issue is the agreement is written in their favor. You give up your rights, but they don't. I'd have to read it to be sure, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that it's going to be written to favor them.
Yeah, it certainly has the potential to go sour too. And if they were shopping around for favorable courts, that could be more likely than I would hope. Because to your point, our justice system does not actually work particularly well as it turns out. If the highest court in the land is so corrupt, all these little courts with even less visibility and oversight scare me.
Have an ultra-brutal "antihero" character like Punisher, who does extremely violent shit to many "only slightly evil" parties. Each time, as part of their calling card, they leave behind a message to the effect of "We do not have a fair court system, and so I am creating one." Biggest victims include judges, but not many lawyers - and they aim for an end result where large organizations don't try to lobby their way out of problems, but instead argue them on true merits in court.
I was being general, didn't write that i suppose.
I am also refereing to companies trying to void warranties for no legal reason etc.
There's plenty of contradictory agreements out there.
I really hope a politician bans those "Class Action Waiver" and "Revoking Right to Arbitration" riders that are getting put into everyone's Term and Conditions contracts. We should have the right to band together if a corporation fucks us over and this is ridiculous.
The way to handle the class action waiver is for all the would-be class action lawsuit plaintiffs to file individual lawsuits. Companies will realize pretty quickly why they do, in fact, want to only have one lawsuit to contend with instead of several thousand or million.
Theoretically, everyone's supposed to have right to self-representation. If some enterprising individual helps them to forego their need for a lawyer, and gives lengthy instructions on all the right forms, even if only 40% of the participants do it correctly, it could be a big hassle for them.
Of course, the other issue is that it would be a big hassle for the courts.
I'm aware how inaccessible civil court is for many people. While not addressing the time aspect, plenty of lawyers will work on contingency. Hurting a companies bottom line is what they understand the most.
It's hard to believe that they decided to take their stand on a case destined to be as high profile as this one. What a monumental misstep. But I hope they stick to their guns now, and that precident is set that stops this practice dead in its tracks.
Not precident in the legal sense, but you're right - if they back off of this defense and agree to take it to court, they'll be fielding way more of these potentially because there will be blood in the water.
I know this isn't the point at all, but it must suck to be the chef in charge of that kitchen right now. Like you've already made a mistake that's killed a doctor and now it's become massive international news...Yikes!
Lets focus our contempt in the correct direction. You have no idea if the wait staff even interacts with the kitchen let alone if they were trained properly, or trained wrong.
Well that’s the entire thing, they weren’t properly trained on allergens and how to deal with them. The couple asked, asked again, and when the food came out, asked a third time because it wasn’t marked allergen free.
This lands square at the feet of Disney because this, undoubtedly, was a measure of cost-cutting. Disney is notorious for this type of behavior in recent years. As with any capitalist enterprise, the con goes: over-deliver and build up a rep, deliver on that rep to a T, nothing more nothing less, and then the coup de grâce. Cash in on that goodwill by abusing, tightening purse strings, sacrificing customer satisfaction and often safety.
The question we’re all gonna find out the answer to in the coming years is how much goodwill does Disney have, exactly. How long can they milk their customers, turning them away from future visits by making their park and product experiences so expensive while being underwhelming that people go into debt to experience them, and so abusive of the customer/vendor relationship that people leave with a bad taste in their mouth.
I’m hoping to watch the entire edifice fucking crumble and burn.
I'm not defending Disney and I cannot speak to this situation. My experience at the restaurants in Disney Springs was very good with respect to allergens. When we inquired if a meal could be made without certain ingredients for allergy reasons, the wait staff left and found experienced staff to assist us. At one of the restaurants, the chef came out clarified the ingredients in the meal we inquired about, clarified which ingredients were a problem, and they verified (without prompting) the ingredients we asked be omitted had been omitted when the meals came out. We were quite satisfied with our experience. We had been avoiding nearly all restaurants up until that point and felt some relief with how it turned out.
In plenty of places, if you work with food and handle allergens then either you need to flag very visibly that you can't guarantee separation of allergens, or you can be on the hook for accidents too.
Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.
They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone's right to seek justice.
The restaurant is not owned by Disney, but it is on Disney property at Disney Springs, Orlando. I would imagine that they are going after a much bigger sum from the restaurant itself
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn't really make it better but still
Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I'm not saying they are in the right, all I'm relativizing is the "years earlier" at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn't cover this kind of situation.
Contracts can't really shield from that kind of negligence either though. You can't have someone sign a contract indemnifying you from everything and then have no culpability when you literally poison them.
I get that servers have to deal with selective gluten allergies but nut and dairy allergies are not that. They are deadly and the server/kitchen should have absolutely refused to serve any food they couldn't separate. This is basic knowledge in the food industry too, something they should have known and been trained on.
Dependig on the country you live in, there might be some law above what Disney might say. For example in most European Countries it's the case. And no matter what Disney writes, like "killing you is alright". There is a law above it that overrules it.
Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts should be either illegal or opt-in (not opt-out). Arbitration is only fair when two sides mutually agree to it, not when a megacorp hides it in the 45th paragraph of their terms and conditions while judges continue to entertain the absurd fiction that it's reasonable to expect consumers to have actually read, understood, and agreed to it.
Disney might want to push it all the way to the Supreme Court, where corporate friendly judges would be all too happy to allow giant corporations to force everyone the interact with into forced arbitration.
I know Disney is as cliché as an evil megacorp gets, but I'm going to need a source for this before I start believing in just any absurd sounding tale.
They’re trying all this batshit crazy nonsense to get out of paying $50,000.
The idea being that if they pay 50k to this guy, it might get someone else to want 500k... or 5 million... or more. Alternately, "We got the lawyers, may as well use them."
Yeah, avoiding precedent is pretty important for big corporations. Not only might someone else sue for more, but I think a successful lawsuit can make future suits easier to win and might open them up to other damages.
In other words, this is not a situation where someone who's currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.
The wife was the doctor who died. The husband is who is suing and also who signed up for the D+ trial so yes it is but on behalf of someone who cannot sue as she is dead.
Disney probably doesn't care if this argument holds in a court of law. If it does, jackpot, they now have a get out of jail free card due to case law. Their main objective is to wear down the plaintiff financially or mentally so that they drop the case.
If SCOTUS sides with the corporation and if I were the binding arbitrator who had to see it afterwards, I would hit Disney with a whopper of a settlement out of pure disgust for this.
Yeah I think there's a lot of people who aren't getting this. It wasn't an informed consent to danger form where the activity they knew was dangerous, and signed off on, killed them. This was a Terms of Service agreement you automatically agree to when you make a purchase. It's supposed to govern the terms of using that purchase.
You're correct. Imitating this sort of speech even outside of Twitch is essentially the meme. The joke is that streamers get so inebriated with talking to the chat that even when no chat exists in real-life they still reflectively reference it. This meme started on TikTok but it has spread into general Gen Z pop culture.
Man, I cant wait till the grand confluence of fascist sycophants foot-trolls and fascist sycophant appointees hit eachother and it all becomes apparent they are just …. oh wait that already is happening with gaz—-oh wait… oh wait. what? you mean Compan000s0sdf0sodjufhgah00y7ruouoobbel peu8rp;il
So you're telling me if you had a food allergy and you go on vacation, you would still go buy groceries and make your own meals?
Yes, there's technically a risk for food allergies whenever you go to a restaurant, but never eating out means you miss out on a lot of life events. The doctor took precautions. They did exactly what they were supposed to. Any restaurant with a sense of food safety knows how important it is to not fuck it up, and clearly Disney skipped out on the food safety training.
If I had a vehicule so fast it could literally kill me, I would never drive it around other people knowing my life was potentially in the hands of some inexperienced driver who has not the slightest concern or knowledge regarding traffic laws.
I could find plenty other analogies, but you get the point... So many mundane everyday activities are life threatening in a way, you can't blame people for living...
Asking the waiter for problematic ingredients and insisting on how severe your allergy is more than enough caution taken. The fault is entirely on the restaurant. If a blind person was run over after a nearby pedestrian ensured them that it was safe to cross the street, would you blame the blind person for leaving their house alone?
Gen-X here. Millenials felt like our younger siblings. Gen-Z feel like our kids and our pride and joy. Gen-Alpha so far feels like that bad acid trip we had back in '91 about Garbage Pail Kids.
I feel like you might be out of the loop here. I want to help. "Chat, [statement or rhetorical question]" has become a meme slang, like millennials calling dogs anything but dogs (pupper, good boi, heckin floof, etc). It comes from Twitch, AFAICT, where streamers use this unironically (and ironically) to interact with their chat.
My name starts with Chat (real name too, but pronounced with Sh instead of a ch) and Chat/Chati are my nicknames. I know how Karens feel when memes use their names...
So Karens need to stop fucking whining, it ain't that bad and some of us have been hearing people equate our name to shit since middle school and just chuckle.
I had a real Don Glover moment too where I had heard people replace the Chat with shit but didn't realize telling the people hiring me they could just call me Shat would sound weird.
Boss later told me how weird it was explaing to the team that Shat would be joining the team soon.
I'm not, it's twitch streamer lingo, I know. Asking this how OP did, in a post, like people posting here are OP's parasocial fans, is just immensely disrespectful. Why not just ask "Is this real?"
I'm not sure which came first, but in my friend group we often will use similar terminology in our group chats. "Hello chat, I just..." "Good morning chat, should I be concerned about..."
Arbitration clauses must be made illegal
Or at least reasonable.
It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying risks that are covered. Some things are just inherently risky, and if the buyer knows and understands that, she can agree on taking that risk. Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.
Arbitration is never the right answer. Fix the judicial system, don’t privatize it.
I think we should be allowed to opt in to arbitration from within the public judicial system, once charges have already been brought forward. Then people will only agree to it when it's legit just saving time/money, and won't change the likely ruling.
A public system designed for everyone can never be as cheap as one specific to the issue/people at hand. It just needs to always be available as a fallback.
I think what you are mentioning is basically how settlements work.
I just can’t see how an arbitration company that is selected by a company will ever have the incentives to side with consumers.
I can only see arbitration working when both sides have equal leverage. Large company vs large company, citizen vs citizen. And both sides must have a say on which arbitration company is selected.
What I'm mentioning will frequently lead to settlements, but the choice of whether or not to use arbitration is typically made before there's any case.
Both sides don't have equal leverage today because of an information asymmetry market failure. The cost to the consumer to read the ToS (and research its arbitrators) for everything they buy is unreasonably high, while it costs the company very little. If consumers only had to research arbitrators after the fact, then the company would have a strong incentive to agree to a fair one, avoiding the public courts.
Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.
That's not the same. You still don't have any legal claims against the hospital or the doctor. You can't sue your surgeon, because you missed, say another week of work because of some unexpected bleeding.
Uhm what are you talking about? Why would I want to sue my surgeon?
EDIT: The reasons why I would not sue my surgeon are:
If the surgeon did something illegal, this would be a different matter.
The whole point of the discussion was that arbitration clauses should be illegal, since they prevent you from suing.
Points were made, that it's still a good thing for tattoo artists and doctors. Your earlier comment seemed to dispute this at first, but then pivoted to funds for damages (that exist and you can get without legal action.
You were then told that's besides the point of the discussion, since it was exactly about suing.
It is not besides the point because there exists an alternative to the whole ordeal of arbitration clauses and suing. That is what I pointed out.
We all joke about how americans sue for the most stupid shit, but (besides different mindsets following from the same reason) you do it because your system allows for it and provides no alternative course of action.
Well it wasn't demonstratably false in any case, as it's the only course of action in some places.
In a perfect world these arbitration clauses wouldn't exist, and luckily they aren't enforceable in many countries.
I would like to see whether and how a case of Negligence should work with the boilerplate arbitration clauses that they're abusing.
Would Disney then roll over and sue the everliving out of the server as a scapegoat?
Your tattoo example doesn't make sense to me. The tattoo shop could require an agreement limiting liability without denying access to the courts.
Are you saying that it's reasonable to be allowed to waive your right to access the legal system when getting a tattoo but not when accessing streaming services?
My country has heavy immunity for doctors. I think we can't sue them, like it's automatically a regional arbitration hearing, and at no point can one get "pain and suffering" but only "recoup of costs to fix as much as possible" kind of stuff.
So if the doc removes the wrong foot, he'll lose his job, and you'll get a pegleg or something like that.
Hmm. Just reading that makes me think the rate of vindictive doctor slayings is too low for that to be true.
....and immunity is exactly what this is about.
Every time you get surgery, you sign a waiver basically saying "there's an inherent risk to this, we're not liable unless someone really screws up". And that's exactly what Disney is trying here - just using an absolutely bonkers interpretation of it.
Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn't happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it's reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there's always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it's far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there's at least one thing that's never reasonable, and that's arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can't be amended after it's made. It can't be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn't allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let's return to your two claims of unreasonability:
There's nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn't fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.
They are in the rest of the first world countries.
You need to reform lawsuits at the same time. The US legal system allows lawyers to take cases on contingency, getting paid only if they win. In most other countries this isn't allowed. In addition, in most other countries it's much easier for the winner of the lawsuit to recover the legal costs of the lawsuit from the loser.
The result of this is that the US has a lot more nuisance and extremely speculative lawsuits. Under those conditions, a binding arbitration setup is more reasonable. It means that neither side is spending tons of money on lawyers. If you reform the legal system so that only people who stand a decent chance of winning are willing to sue, then definitely get rid of binding arbitration.
Make sure to pirate all Disney media instead of consuming it legally so that you can sue them if they try to kill you.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
Just pirate that shit
For many parents, it's quicker to pay $10 for Disney+ than to load up a torrenting site and download the torrents every time. As a former piece of shit bratty toddler, I can understand why many parents would rather pay.
Is there any good magnet urls to Disney's whole collection?
Google this hash info: EF4211584F37CA70A4B1A2E47E7E833C79ABACBA
Doesn't work anymore :(
Jesus... You're not wrong. That's fucking crazy. You're NOT wrong. Wtf is wrong with my country?
Would that break the ToS if I had a trial previously?
Yes and Disney will get very mad 😠😠
Think of the shareholders!!
Sadly yes:
https://apnews.com/article/disney-allergy-death-lawsuit-nyu-doctor-florida-4bdaf74e2c889882b23b319ec720680a
Disney allowed to kill your spouse because you watched the mandalorian
Not the worse trade off. As long as we aren’t including Season 3.
The dark arts of the mouse are a pathway to legal techniques some consider to be… unnatural.
People don't realize how important the outcome of this court case will be.
Man, america is wild place. Do you have any laws there?
And laws that do protect the little guys get ignored by our right-wing courts. For instance, the courts quit enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act because, in the words of Scalia, "it makes no economic sense."
Only the ones that are written for and protected by corporations. Everything else is the wild Wild West.
Most Americans would be offended by your comment, and that’s why we don’t have nice things. We’re very, and I can not stress this enough, VERY stupid.
It's the law that the businesses get to screw you.
Oh yeah and every infant is assigned an assault weapon at birth.
Man, here voenkom has to find you and give you povestka to assign you assault rifle.
It's gonna be nuts.
It's certainly going to cause a reaction.
It will likely be dismissed as Disney wasn't the company responsible for staffing or managing the restaurant.
Which sucks, because I desperately want to see Disney take another massive L in the spotlight of the mainstream news cycle.
Piracy is the safe option then. Got it.
All it takes is one free trial. They got me, it's over.
How can a streaming service agreement apply to a restaurant
in a park?Wasn't even in a park. The restaurant is in a separate mall. No ticket needed.
A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like "BB Wolf's Sausage Co.", and where "Guest Services" is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld's property rules.
That has nothing to do with whether it was actually in a park though, in which case one could argue about accepting terms based on a park ticket purchase. Since it's not in a park, and needs no ticket, that shouldn't apply.
Also, since you want to talk about branding, Raglan Road is a very well known street in Dublin, Ireland. It's not really Disney-related, just Irish. Heck, looking into it a tiny bit more, the pub seems like it might even be independently owned and operated, not actually owned or operated by Disney at all. Their website doesn't even mention Disney anywhere on it that I can find, which would lead one to assume it's not actually Disney- related. It just happens to be located in a space operated by Disney. In which case I don't think Disney would be liable at all anyway for an independent business, which seems a bit confusing why their lawyers wouldn't just go that route instead, unless part of the agreement to be there is to be covered by Disney's legal team.
If it is under the Disney umbrella, I'd bet that Disney World, Disney Springs, the Raglan Road Irish Pub, and Disney+ are all legally separate companies. They may be wholly owned by the Walt Disney Company under their umbrella, but technically separate companies. Legally, this matters a lot, even if it's all under the Disney brand. Even if we don't really care about that distinction as consumers.
Probably, but is a customer expected to know that? What if you're inside Disney World itself and you're injured on the It's a Small World ride, and then Disney says "oh, that's not us, that's owned and operated by 'It's A Small World LLC'".
Part of the attraction of the whole Disney Springs area is that it's under the Disney umbrella. As a visitor, you know that the company is going to keep everything clean, make sure that everything is up to high standards, etc. You're probably going to pay a bit more to go to a store / restaurant there than a typical strip mall, but in exchange you get part of the Disney experience. It's pretty reasonable to assume that that will also include restaurants that produce high quality food and that ensure that someone's allergy needs are met.
FWIW, I don't think the judge is going to go for it. Disney's lawyers are the most bloodthirsty son of a bitch lawyers on Earth, but just because they make the argument doesn't mean the court will accept it.
This is why those ToS are 71pages long. I don't think there are many good judges out there anymore, but I hope the one that reviews this case goes absolutely ape-shit on Disney. There is a legal tradition of harsh punishments for criminals in examplar cases to set detterents to future crimes. The same needs to be done to reel in these corporations.
It probably won't.
For some reason that word "merely" just gets right under my skin. Like they KNOW it's peak slimy, but they are just trying to do their job, man.
...Which is to protect the company at the expense of anything else: Reason, decency, consumer rights...
Honestly, isn't them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said "we have nothing to do with it" they might've just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can't sue me. Not a good look.
The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they're all false in order to win the law suit.
So it'll look like:
So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it's worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they'll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.
No, it isn't. It's saying, look, we had nothing to do with this because it was outside of our reasonable control, and even if we were somehow in control of this independent entity, this is the wrong venue because they agreed to this arbitration clause.
Moreover, per another article on NPR, "Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is "immaterial."" In other words, he agreed to arbitration when he bought the ticket to Disney World, and it was while at the park, at an independent restaurant, that Ms. Tangsuan had a fatal allergic reaction.
Is that arbitration agreement reasonable? Personally, I lean towards no, but that's mostly because arbitration is almost always in favor of the corporation. If it was truly a neutral process? Then yeah, I'd mostly support it, because it's pretty easy for a defendant like Disney to bury any single plaintiff. (OTOH, it makes class action suits much harder.) Is it even valid, since it's the estate that's suing Disney, rather than her husband, and the estate didn't exist when the tickets were bought and so couldn't have agreed to the terms? Hard to say.
Yeah. "I didn't kill her. But even if I did, here's my get out of jail free card."
The problem is just going to court and saying "we have nothing to do with it" is both expensive and can end up with them going to trial. If they believe they have nothing to do with the incident, this is their easiest route.
Not trying to defend a big corp like Disney (they have plenty of money and can easily cover it), but I was just involved in a suite brought against me and in the end even though it would have been an "easy win" for us, it still would have cost us more money to fight it out in court than it was to just settle. And that's assuming the trial went our way which is never a guarantee.
I sincerely hope this shit blows up. May corporations providing "free" services forever be associated with literal devil's contacts. Piracy is no longer just about sticking it to the man, it's about freedom!
It would cost Disney literally pocket change to compensate the widower, but instead they rather spend hundred of thousands of dollars for lawyers and legal fee to fight it.
Not to mention how abhorrent it makes the "family" company look.
It also sends a message that if you ever use a Disney product then they'll use that as an excuse to deny you your legal rights.
They're using this chance since they know they can easily dispute it to try and set precedent for terms and services being used in situations that don't make sense.
The judge will probably slap it down and they can still say that they don't have anything to do with the restaurant and just walk away free, but it's worth trying cause there's plenty pro corpo judges now a days.
Did you mean "pocket changes" like "yay new pockets" or "pocket change" like "a little money"?
You said "literally" so I'm thinking they're paying in linen swatches.
You probably think you're clever but being pedantic is just being insufferable about stuff everyone else understood from context. That doesn't make you clever, that just shows everyone that you need to be seen as clever.
You're getting downvotes, but I for one applaud your manic pedantry!
It's not pocket change to kill a doctor, quite the opposite. They earn very well, she will be very well compensated.
You know how much Disney is worth or their annual profit?
Even something like 10 millions is just cost of business or a rounding error to Disney.
10mill settlement. Yeah nah. add zeros.
Give me one example, in the entire history of mankind, a settlement for 1 live loss worth 100mil or more.
Idk what perfect world you came from, but in this fucked up world we're living in, a human life ain't cost that much.
Every single life insurance contract for a doctor
Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/theme-parks/2023/12/20/disney-plus-gift-card-accident/71995807007/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3X1rH7JlfCdnTUyz73bhi5SLAEpTyc0vpA-zpL64nbOD9Ri9t7952jcDo_aem_K3wbukZX1gCnJQzBb3Biuw
I can't believe this is even a fucking thing
There's no way this gets dismissed, right? The precedent this would set would be unimaginable...
I dunno, it depends on how many supreme court justices disney can afford I guess.
You really think Disney has a monopoly on evil?
I'm a bit confused here; what have they got a monopoly on?
A monopoly is a business with no viable competitors. But Disney has at least one or two competitors in pretty much everything they do.
So does Google, but it's still a monopoly due to how they prevent smaller competitors from challenging the status quo.
Technically they have a monopoly on all their intellectual property (characters, star wars, marvel, pixar etc.)
But every company has a "monopoly on their intellectual property." That's just how that works and has nothing to do with being a monopoly.
As I said, technically a monopoly.
Fox + ABC is pretty big, but I don't see Disney being the same as a Google or Microsoft monopoly.
Please. You are correct but you need to be informed and eloquent about it. Google “enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices,” according to the most recent judge to rule against them (it was a 270 page ruling so I can't blame you for not reading it).
Intellectual property rights do not a monopoly make. Unfair practices (like requiring webpages to conform to a new standard like google amp or not get boosted in search) make the monopoly.
How the fuck is it not punishable to write stuff into those contracts that contradict the law (obv. i mean this past a certain company size). Like for real.
Edit: Typo
I don't know what the exact agreement here is, but such things are very often not enforceable. You can't have someone sign their rights away. You can have them sign the document, but that document will be worthless in court and will not be respected. Those are more to scare people and discourage them from suing the company.
I mean sure, but writing agreements that contradict the law, at least in some of the more egregious cases, should really be actively punishable.
And this is why.
Yea, i am not so amused by the scaring people part. That is my problem here.
I'm not exactly sure that it DOES contradict the law, which is the problem.
My hope for this case is that it sets the precident of crushing their bullshit terms of forced arbitration before this happens again and deems terms like these unenforcable. To date, I'm not aware of anyone challenging this in court - meanwhile every company in the country is adding terms like these to their software agreements. So let's throw this shit out for good.
Disney winning sets a precedent that will ultimately lead to vigilante justice by necessity.
If Disney wins, then our “justice” system does not work and cannot be trusted, thus leading people to doing what they need to just to survive when every company starts using that clause to prevent us from holding them responsible for anything at all.
And if that's the case, I guess I need to dig out my mask and cape, and get back to work as a crime fighter.
The issue is the agreement is written in their favor. You give up your rights, but they don't. I'd have to read it to be sure, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that it's going to be written to favor them.
Yeah, it certainly has the potential to go sour too. And if they were shopping around for favorable courts, that could be more likely than I would hope. Because to your point, our justice system does not actually work particularly well as it turns out. If the highest court in the land is so corrupt, all these little courts with even less visibility and oversight scare me.
I've actually wanted to write a story like this;
Have an ultra-brutal "antihero" character like Punisher, who does extremely violent shit to many "only slightly evil" parties. Each time, as part of their calling card, they leave behind a message to the effect of "We do not have a fair court system, and so I am creating one." Biggest victims include judges, but not many lawyers - and they aim for an end result where large organizations don't try to lobby their way out of problems, but instead argue them on true merits in court.
I was being general, didn't write that i suppose. I am also refereing to companies trying to void warranties for no legal reason etc. There's plenty of contradictory agreements out there.
Edit: Typo
I really hope a politician bans those "Class Action Waiver" and "Revoking Right to Arbitration" riders that are getting put into everyone's Term and Conditions contracts. We should have the right to band together if a corporation fucks us over and this is ridiculous.
The way to handle the class action waiver is for all the would-be class action lawsuit plaintiffs to file individual lawsuits. Companies will realize pretty quickly why they do, in fact, want to only have one lawsuit to contend with instead of several thousand or million.
Not everyone has funds for a lawyer or time to get it done. Sueing someone in this country is complicated and expensive
Theoretically, everyone's supposed to have right to self-representation. If some enterprising individual helps them to forego their need for a lawyer, and gives lengthy instructions on all the right forms, even if only 40% of the participants do it correctly, it could be a big hassle for them.
Of course, the other issue is that it would be a big hassle for the courts.
I'm aware how inaccessible civil court is for many people. While not addressing the time aspect, plenty of lawyers will work on contingency. Hurting a companies bottom line is what they understand the most.
Now THAT is bad PR. Wow. Going to be hard to top it.
The thing has been popping up in newspapers all over the World.
It's bad PR for Disney and outside the US, it's bad PR for the US also.
It's hard to believe that they decided to take their stand on a case destined to be as high profile as this one. What a monumental misstep. But I hope they stick to their guns now, and that precident is set that stops this practice dead in its tracks.
Well, if they don't do it now it sets a precedent that you can sue them. They don't want that happening.
Not precident in the legal sense, but you're right - if they back off of this defense and agree to take it to court, they'll be fielding way more of these potentially because there will be blood in the water.
I know this isn't the point at all, but it must suck to be the chef in charge of that kitchen right now. Like you've already made a mistake that's killed a doctor and now it's become massive international news...Yikes!
Yknow what else sucks? Dying.
Also I wonder if the staff could be charged with involuntary manslaughter
Lets focus our contempt in the correct direction. You have no idea if the wait staff even interacts with the kitchen let alone if they were trained properly, or trained wrong.
Well that’s the entire thing, they weren’t properly trained on allergens and how to deal with them. The couple asked, asked again, and when the food came out, asked a third time because it wasn’t marked allergen free.
This lands square at the feet of Disney because this, undoubtedly, was a measure of cost-cutting. Disney is notorious for this type of behavior in recent years. As with any capitalist enterprise, the con goes: over-deliver and build up a rep, deliver on that rep to a T, nothing more nothing less, and then the coup de grâce. Cash in on that goodwill by abusing, tightening purse strings, sacrificing customer satisfaction and often safety.
The question we’re all gonna find out the answer to in the coming years is how much goodwill does Disney have, exactly. How long can they milk their customers, turning them away from future visits by making their park and product experiences so expensive while being underwhelming that people go into debt to experience them, and so abusive of the customer/vendor relationship that people leave with a bad taste in their mouth.
I’m hoping to watch the entire edifice fucking crumble and burn.
I'm not defending Disney and I cannot speak to this situation. My experience at the restaurants in Disney Springs was very good with respect to allergens. When we inquired if a meal could be made without certain ingredients for allergy reasons, the wait staff left and found experienced staff to assist us. At one of the restaurants, the chef came out clarified the ingredients in the meal we inquired about, clarified which ingredients were a problem, and they verified (without prompting) the ingredients we asked be omitted had been omitted when the meals came out. We were quite satisfied with our experience. We had been avoiding nearly all restaurants up until that point and felt some relief with how it turned out.
Don't worry, capitalism is the death kneel of humanity. Global warming will end our species as a byproduct of a few thousand people living like gods.
Dunno how it is there but where I live you can't be charged for a legitimate fuck up at work like that. Only if it was malicious
In plenty of places, if you work with food and handle allergens then either you need to flag very visibly that you can't guarantee separation of allergens, or you can be on the hook for accidents too.
Your job is to serve food. If your food was bad and you said is wasn't, that's negligent. Ignorance isn't a defense when it's your job.
As a person who owns Disney stocks, I would just like to say:
Pay up, bitches!
Have you considered stopping?
Or shorting it, when I expect it to go down in price, thereby getting more money out of them.
I sure hope they not only lose, but get further punitive damages for even trying to pull this shit.
Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.
They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone's right to seek justice.
Suing for 50k. 50. K.
The restaurant is not owned by Disney, but it is on Disney property at Disney Springs, Orlando. I would imagine that they are going after a much bigger sum from the restaurant itself
Probably not, big sums are a US thing, and the familly is UK. My point is they're doing this to try precedence.
Tbf: he renewed this agreement when buying tickets which doesn't really make it better but still
Edit: since I got some downvotes and comments, I'm not saying they are in the right, all I'm relativizing is the "years earlier" at the end. The contract was renewed recently, still it totally doesn't cover this kind of situation.
No. That doesn't make sense either. That was for the park this is their restaurant at their mall off site.
Edit: the tickets they didn't survive long enough to actually use either.
Still it's more recent and I said myself that it doesn't make it better
The restaurant was not in a ticketed park, so the ticket purchase is as related to this as the Disney+ trial.
My only point was that it's more recent than years ago. And I agree that it doesn't change anything
Disney Springs doesn't have tickets. It's just a glorified shopping mall.
Contracts can't really shield from that kind of negligence either though. You can't have someone sign a contract indemnifying you from everything and then have no culpability when you literally poison them.
I get that servers have to deal with selective gluten allergies but nut and dairy allergies are not that. They are deadly and the server/kitchen should have absolutely refused to serve any food they couldn't separate. This is basic knowledge in the food industry too, something they should have known and been trained on.
This feels so illegal. If it isn't, it should be. Fuck Disney for this.
Dependig on the country you live in, there might be some law above what Disney might say. For example in most European Countries it's the case. And no matter what Disney writes, like "killing you is alright". There is a law above it that overrules it.
Not France btw
I need context This is intriguing.
Arbitration is part of France's laws, I think its pretty much the same thing as the USA.
EDIT: maybe not completely for murder IANAL
This could go either way and be an amazing consumer victory, or essentially the end of the right to sue over anything, ever.
Though what will really happen if it looks like Disney might lose, is Disney will pay off the widower to drop the suit and prevent a precedent.
Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts should be either illegal or opt-in (not opt-out). Arbitration is only fair when two sides mutually agree to it, not when a megacorp hides it in the 45th paragraph of their terms and conditions while judges continue to entertain the absurd fiction that it's reasonable to expect consumers to have actually read, understood, and agreed to it.
Disney might want to push it all the way to the Supreme Court, where corporate friendly judges would be all too happy to allow giant corporations to force everyone the interact with into forced arbitration.
Onion? No? Christ...
Just 'murica.
Even more ridiculous is that according to this article the agreement even extends to the free trials, even if they don't extend past the trial period.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
If they win this case, I volunteer to blow up one of their buildings at night
I'm Spartacus
Why wait to see if they win?
Let's go
damn imperialist rat
I know Disney is as cliché as an evil megacorp gets, but I'm going to need a source for this before I start believing in just any absurd sounding tale.
It's true: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney
Djeezis... Fucking... Christ...
The idea being that if they pay 50k to this guy, it might get someone else to want 500k... or 5 million... or more. Alternately, "We got the lawyers, may as well use them."
Yeah, avoiding precedent is pretty important for big corporations. Not only might someone else sue for more, but I think a successful lawsuit can make future suits easier to win and might open them up to other damages.
If they pay out then the floodgates will open and everyone will trying to die from food allergies in their parks.
/s
https://globalnews.ca/news/10698866/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney
https://www.google.com/search?q=Disney+doctor+allergic+fatal+arbitration&oq=Disney+doctor+allergic+fatal+arbitration+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigAdIBCTE1NTA5ajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&hl=en
There are plenty of reasons to hate Disney. If you're still paying for their content at this point, you are part of the problem.
The happiest place on earth, y'all!
The wife was the doctor who died. The husband is who is suing and also who signed up for the D+ trial so yes it is but on behalf of someone who cannot sue as she is dead.
I can't believe nobody has mentioned the fact that it looks like Mickey is pissing over the disney logo in this image
Disney probably doesn't care if this argument holds in a court of law. If it does, jackpot, they now have a get out of jail free card due to case law. Their main objective is to wear down the plaintiff financially or mentally so that they drop the case.
The importance of piracy right here friends...
Seriously I hope this situation goes in favor of the widow.
*widower
Why the fuck am I paying for Disney plus?
Yarrr
Imagine if he had actually purchased it.
I only want to know how this ends
I’m kind of worried about Celebration, Florida now. It always seemed too much of a Stepford Wives type situation but now it’s just ridiculous.
If SCOTUS sides with the corporation and if I were the binding arbitrator who had to see it afterwards, I would hit Disney with a whopper of a settlement out of pure disgust for this.
Arbitration is Roberts’ baby. No way he will side against any company.
yeah, that work like a trap.
Sign up for one service with arbitrate ... that would apply for all service.
In any just world, there’s no such argument that the victims waived his rights because
Yeah I think there's a lot of people who aren't getting this. It wasn't an informed consent to danger form where the activity they knew was dangerous, and signed off on, killed them. This was a Terms of Service agreement you automatically agree to when you make a purchase. It's supposed to govern the terms of using that purchase.
*Her rights, the deceased doctor was a woman, her husband is the one suing
Chat? This isn't a chat room :P I guess it's a forum, now that I think about it!
Feck Disney, by the by, bloody awful how evil they are :-(
asking "chat" for feedback is a tiktok meme. chat is @[email protected] out of touch? ;)
I'm ancient apparently. Referring to chat always comes to my head as livestreaming on twitch.
You're correct. Imitating this sort of speech even outside of Twitch is essentially the meme. The joke is that streamers get so inebriated with talking to the chat that even when no chat exists in real-life they still reflectively reference it. This meme started on TikTok but it has spread into general Gen Z pop culture.
Man, I cant wait till the grand confluence of fascist sycophants foot-trolls and fascist sycophant appointees hit eachother and it all becomes apparent they are just …. oh wait that already is happening with gaz—-oh wait… oh wait. what? you mean Compan000s0sdf0sodjufhgah00y7ruouoobbel peu8rp;il
So you're telling me if you had a food allergy and you go on vacation, you would still go buy groceries and make your own meals?
Yes, there's technically a risk for food allergies whenever you go to a restaurant, but never eating out means you miss out on a lot of life events. The doctor took precautions. They did exactly what they were supposed to. Any restaurant with a sense of food safety knows how important it is to not fuck it up, and clearly Disney skipped out on the food safety training.
Most people can't always eat at home, especially when say they are on a vacation at Disney.
Then you are assured that your food is allergen free. This is about as desperate a situation you can be in and as certain of safety as you can be.
If I had a vehicule so fast it could literally kill me, I would never drive it around other people knowing my life was potentially in the hands of some inexperienced driver who has not the slightest concern or knowledge regarding traffic laws.
I could find plenty other analogies, but you get the point... So many mundane everyday activities are life threatening in a way, you can't blame people for living...
Asking the waiter for problematic ingredients and insisting on how severe your allergy is more than enough caution taken. The fault is entirely on the restaurant. If a blind person was run over after a nearby pedestrian ensured them that it was safe to cross the street, would you blame the blind person for leaving their house alone?
TIL linguistic memes aren't allowed here
Can't wait for posts that'll ask their "skibidi rizzlers" if the screenshot is "gyatt" or part of the "fanum tax", frfr
Gen-X here. Millenials felt like our younger siblings. Gen-Z feel like our kids and our pride and joy. Gen-Alpha so far feels like that bad acid trip we had back in '91 about Garbage Pail Kids.
Considering the state of the world they're growing up in, I can't really blame them.
This made me realize that next year when Gen Beta starts I'll be 4 generations from the newest one. 👴
It's bedtime, grandpa.
Chat is the first fourth person pronoun. Change my mind
I feel like you might be out of the loop here. I want to help. "Chat, [statement or rhetorical question]" has become a meme slang, like millennials calling dogs anything but dogs (pupper, good boi, heckin floof, etc). It comes from Twitch, AFAICT, where streamers use this unironically (and ironically) to interact with their chat.
My name starts with Chat (real name too, but pronounced with Sh instead of a ch) and Chat/Chati are my nicknames. I know how Karens feel when memes use their names...
So Karens need to stop fucking whining, it ain't that bad and some of us have been hearing people equate our name to shit since middle school and just chuckle.
Your name is Shat?
I am so sorry.
Using imperative mood for getting your own pants
Chat my pants
I had a real Don Glover moment too where I had heard people replace the Chat with shit but didn't realize telling the people hiring me they could just call me Shat would sound weird.
Boss later told me how weird it was explaing to the team that Shat would be joining the team soon.
"He goes by Shat?"
"That's what he told me."
I'm not, it's twitch streamer lingo, I know. Asking this how OP did, in a post, like people posting here are OP's parasocial fans, is just immensely disrespectful. Why not just ask "Is this real?"
I don't think so. Chat is just gen Zalpha for "you guys" in my experience.
I'm not sure which came first, but in my friend group we often will use similar terminology in our group chats. "Hello chat, I just..." "Good morning chat, should I be concerned about..."