The lawsuit claims that Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant despite repeatedly informing the waiter of her severe allergy.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    264
    ·
    3 months ago

    "Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior.

    The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company."

    Some lawyers truly are scum.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        So would this mean that Disney can no longer use their massive legal department to crush fair use of their IP? If someone signs up for Disney+, the arbitration agreement goes both ways.

        I would think a competent judge would just ask the Disney lawyer that question. Like, “do you want to be out of a job?”

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          No.

          You and Disney agree to arbitrate all your claims. Disney still retains the right to fuck you over to the full extent of the legal system.

          After all, corporations are people, and some people are more people than other people.

      • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        3 months ago

        Very much nottheonion material. Something like

        ”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Shellfish Poisonings”

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I do hope whoever suggested that this is a legitimate cause to dismiss the case dies of an intestinal blockage caused by hemorrhoids. Just a thing I hope.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Arguing over health/death via a technicality is one of the lowest of lows.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        This shouldn’t even be a technicality here. If this goes through and a TOS is universally binding to your life then the court system just died. Also they can put other ridiculous things in there like you owe them the subscription money in perpetuity even if you decide to uninstall the app. They’ll argue the consideration is there because you can re-install at any time.

  • cdf12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Arbitration clauses need to be deemed illegal.

    Especially ones that are mandatory for employment

    • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      or at the absolute bare fucking minimum be opt-in only, instead of “opt out by sending us a handwritten letter through snail mail within 45 minutes of this notice.” the shit offers less than zero benefit to the consumer and basically lets corporations get away with murder

      nothing will ever change to make them go away

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Opt in with customers isn’t a thing. If you don’t opt in, you don’t get housing, or Internet, or phone service. The list goes on. Opt in is libertarian propaganda. No different than at will employment.

        • Sesudesu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, I was gonna say basically the same thing, ‘opt in’ is just a solid point of leverage away from ‘required.’

          Should be illegal.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months ago

      Arbitration has its place in B2B contracts.

      With consumers or employees? Absolutely not

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m just about to move to Quebec, which is based on the French Napoleonic code rather than English Common Law. I’m not an expert, but I understand that the French system does not rely on precedent in making judicial decisions, but everything has to be codified in the law.

      Anyway, another one of the legal differences between Quebec and other provinces in Canada is that mandatory arbitration clauses are illegal.

      The medical system may be imploding even faster than the rest of Canada, and my rights as an English speaker may be stripped from me by the time I move, but they do have some protections for individuals.

  • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    ugh, how revolting. for a while there, while they were fighting desantis, i forgot how evil disney can be.

  • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The estate should file the claim. They wronged her, not the husband. By having the estate file suit, that would negate anything the husband may have done.

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not wrong. Actually, if they don’t, that’s the easy way to dismissal for Disney. “Can’t be that bad if the chef and waitress weren’t sued”

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      It could be a difficult thing to prove who is at fault, and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the staff at the restaurant were at fault individually.

      • BossDj@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Honestly, my brain went straight to, “Someone along that chain is one of those people who think allergy sufferers are just weak complainy people and faking it”