838
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
838 points (99.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9756 readers
1465 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
view the rest of the comments
Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.
Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.
Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.
He was also merely acting as an agent for her estate, not suing them personally, and she hadn't agreed to any arbitration
Then they should have argued that instead of "you can't sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago."
Moving to arbitration where the party making the agreement picks the arbiter, is close to being dismissed because there is about a 10% chance of winning.
The restaurant is in Disney Springs. Correct that its not Disney but they still have a stake in the restaurant.
Your misinformation is just as bad.
Wow, no reason for name calling. I was just calling out how you were doing a similar injustice to the truth. But okay, I am a cunt for disagreeing with your assessment.
I’m not arguing that Disney should be held liable just that your generalization was wrong. If you are going to argue points of view on the internet and revert to name calling all I have to say is go to bed you child.
In other news, like the article that spurred this thread corporations using ToS to scapegoat things is wrong.
So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?
There is no way the disney brand would allow complete control over a sub contractor. Disney has final say in anything inside those gates.
More like Disney has final say in anything inside these gates that appear to be guarded by Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.
What bullshit? Disney, has an image to protect and they absolutely exert control over their sub contractor vendors.
The amount of brain worm from this whole thing is amazing to me. This is on the level of trumper shit at this point. Seeing so many people incapable of acknowledging that they misunderstood something is just crazy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know you're a good person for being patient with so many boobs.
I'm not saying Disney should be held liable, but the fact remains that the defense they initially went with was "You used an unrelated service for a week several years ago so you can't sue us" instead of something credible and relevant.
No, the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with. And the "unrelated service" that they used (on actually several occasions according to Disney's motion) contained a boilerplate arbitration agreements that literally every corporation under the sun uses. Shady as shit? Absolutely. Both parties are being shady as shit. The lawsuit only included Disney because there was never going to be a big payday without them. Nothing about the plaintiff or Disney is either credible or relevant.
Then Disney should have argued that instead of something shady as shit.