- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
While this isn’t news about new technology, I thought it was an interesting look about how predatory EULAs can still hurt us even years later in seemingly unrelated ways
Some key excerpts:
After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower’s wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.
Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.
They allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation “several more times” after that.
After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan “began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor.”
“The medical examiner’s investigation determined that [Tangsuan’s] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” according to the lawsuit.
He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”
In late May, Disney’s lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.
The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a month-long trial in 2019.
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.”
“Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,’” the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo’s claims.
“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death,” [Piccolo’s legal team] wrote in the 123-page filing.
They confirmed he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn’t found any charges associated with it after that point.
“In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+,” they wrote.
The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney’s motion for October 2.
You must log in or register to comment.
The fact that Disney is asserting that whether a EULA has been read is irrelevant and that a EULA signed five years prior for an unrelated use is still enforceable feels more than insidious.
I hope Disney’s claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.
I hope Disney’s claim gets thrown out because I worry about the precedent this could set for EULAs going forward.
I hope that it isn’t thrown out. I hope it goes to court, and the judge, in their ruling, outlines precisely why a EULA for Disney+ doesn’t apply here - reasons such as a single month of service not constituting an endless contract, a contract not being able to apply outside the bounds of the service regardless of the serving entity, perhaps even some comment on the scope of the EULA and what’s allowed in a legal contract (especially when it’s presented the way it is).
There is a massive opportunity for a judge, biased or not, to make it clear where the bounds of law, as it is currently written, apply and do not apply in this case without making any major decisions about the scope of EULAs themselves.
If it goes to court, it might get appealed all the way to the supreme court who will be only to happy to give more rights to corporations over people
As much as I despise the current court, I would not expect them to rule in that fashion because this isn’t an issue that’s politically charged. Gorsuch is very much a letter of the law boy, so he’d rule in favor of existing law and the idea of making law more explicit if there are areas which can’t be reasoned out. Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are all pro consumer rights, so they’d vote against EULA applying super broadly. My guess is Roberts would also vote in favor of consumer protection given his track record. Thomas could probably be bought off, but IDK if Disney would want to be associated with buying him off. Then again Thomas is against regulation in general so he might be fine with EULA of any scope. Barrett studied under Scalia, so she’ll probably be against because Disney is too woke. Kavanaugh tends to lean team Gorsuch when it comes to word of the law so long as it doesn’t violate his conservative principles so my guess is he’d also be against. It could be a 8-1 against Disney with those numbers.
But perhaps more importantly, they’d probably just not even take it up as an issue, and leave it up to the lower court unless the lower court gave an absolutely wild verdict.
- Most of the world uses Google.
- Everyone must accept Google EULA to use.
- Google adds arbitration rule to EULA.
- Google adds “EULA covers all Google subsidiaries and partners” to EULA.
- Google sells “partnerships” to every company that can afford it.
- Profit.
Partner killed by a faulty Ford truck? Never signed a Ford EULA? No worries, Ford is a Google Partner™! See you in arbitration, bitch! 😂
He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”
That… seems insanely low. It’s likely not even a year’s salary.
That stuck out to me as well. Disney probably made 50k USD in the time it took me to write this comment. This feels more like sending a message than trying to avoid a costly payout.
I’m sure they want to discourage lawsuits, but I’m worried they did this just to try to set a precedent on EULAs being the end-all-be-all.
I just hope they get enough bad publicity from this move to cost them more than the payout would have.
Is it really possible to sign away a right to sue a company, especially hidden in an EULA? For an unrelated service as well… I guess that’s something the court must decide in the end.
It’s a pity that a company who created so many beloved stories and characters fell so low.
And for a free trial, no less! If this isn’t laughed out of the courtroom and dismissed with prejudice, we’re all screwed.
Is it really possible…?
If Disney’s lawyers think it’s possible, it’s probably possible. And if it’s not, they’ll figure out who to lobby to make sure it is.
Is it really possible to sign away a right to sue a company, especially hidden in an EULA?
Yes it is. It is called “forced arbitration” and pretty much every contract you are compelled to sign has it.
In any kind of just society with a fair legal system it would not be legal. But that doesn’t describe us or our legal system.
Disney
stoleadapted most of those belowed stories and characters.Disney climbed the ladder of public domain and then pulled the ladder up behind themselves.
It really shouldn’t be possible in a EULA/agreement of any kind to essentially say “you agree you can’t sue us in future for anything ever”.
So Disney wants to make it so if you have a Disney+ account, they’re allowed to kill you.
Not a great strategy for retaining customers, gang.
if you have /ever/ had a disney+ account~ 🕊️
This makes me glad I pirate their content. Cunts.
I keep wondering if information like this will change anyone’s mind about Disney.
It seems like all Iger has to do is throw a little shade at Trump or DeSantis and everyone instantly believes that Disney is some sort of bastion of progressive thought that doesn’t have a vile history of exploitation.
Lol no we just like when the mothra fights godzilla.
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.”
Whuh? Why didn’t they make their case around that instead of Disney+?
Because they want the precedent.
Imagine being able to force arbitration for anything, based on an unrelated EULA to whatever service was involved in a lawsuit. This is an evil corporation’s wet dream.
Yikes, the legal system really is horribly systemically broken, right to its core.
This really reinforces my decision to pirate content.
