12mo ago

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber - WDW News Today

wdwnt.com

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber

United States | News & Politics @lemmy.ml

☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ @lemmy.ml

12mo ago

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber

wdwnt.com /2024/08/disney-dismissal-wrongful-death-lawsuit/

23 comments

Fucking psychopaths.
- Hey now.
  You don't know if you've signed away your right to criticize Disney!
- Disney is a business, the law is expected to prevent them from behaving like psychopaths. Because (almost) every company will when there is enough money on the line.
  The real problem here is that law makers don't prevent these nefarious contracts, where people sign away basic rights. These contracts are illegal and void in most countries that have better laws/regulation.
  
  That makes my observation no less true.
  Much is periodically made of public mental health issues, most often depression. But far and away the most significant mental health issue humanity faces, and quite likely the most significant issue, period, is psychopaths in positions of power.
  
  $ = speech
What. The. Fuck.
- Terms. Of. Service.
Disney steals Onion headline from future for legal argument
I'd be really curious to hear if the court accepts Disney's argument. (F*** them if they do)
- It's Florida so it wouldn't surprise me. However there are multiple ways it which it shouldn't. Did Disney have unequal bargaining, was there consideration and acceptance, is it against the public interest and public policy, does the arbitration clause create undue burden... All these things should be against Disney. But... The Supreme Court even when it didn't lean Republicunt has been pro-arbitration and anti consumer.
  
  None of that should even matter.
  Disney is claiming the one line in the terms and conditions of a free trial of Disney+ years ago means the consumer must abide by those terms in perpetuity for anything Disney related. Even things completely unrelated to Disney+.
Goddamn that's fucking cold. Regardless of the merits of the lawsuit, lawyers having the balls and lack of humanity to use a video streaming service terms of service to try dismissing an in-person accident at a restaurant is just wild.
- Corporate defense attorneys are the worst people imaginable. If their CEO raped a 9 year old they'd be saying she asked for it. That is how despicable they are.
In civilized countries that kind of contracts are illegal.
USA is not a country of law, if such contracts can stand. Here it would void everything that contract gives Disney. EVERYTHING!
In America, cooperations are allowed to twist the law and turn everything on its head, and there are no repercussions!
In a country where law matters, you can't sign away basic rights, if this is generally allowed, you can by the same method create a system where de facto slavery exist.
IANAL, IANAA (not American). I would wager this argument won't work due to subdivisions of the Disney corporation into a lot of sub corporations. The terms of service and any other contract are usually between the consumer and the relevant sub corporate entity. This is usually what protects the parent corporation from one arm of the business spreading it's risk to the rest of the corporate body. In this case, arguments reaching across that would risk spreading throughout the company.... Weird that they would risk it.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
- Fuck off

23 comments