this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
1527 points (98.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9736 readers
345 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 months ago

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:

  1. I didn't do it.
  2. Even if I did do it you can't prove it was me.
  3. Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn't be liable.
  4. 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.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah. "I didn't kill her. But even if I did, here's my get out of jail free card."