• leisesprecher@feddit.org
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • ngwoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    Make sure to pirate all Disney media instead of consuming it legally so that you can sue them if they try to kill you.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
    1·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • Overwrite1@lemm.eeEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    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.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    1·
    3 months ago

    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…

    • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • LANIK2000@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 months ago

    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!

    • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      Piracy, watching through a friend, BluRays & DVDs, hard copies & actually owning something as opposed to…perpetually renting access, owning nothing & being happy about it.