It now says the case “warrants a sensitive approach.”

Disney tried to force the case into arbitration by citing the agreement on the widower’s Disney Plus trial account.

Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial.

“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” chairman of Disney experiences Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
    2831·
    3 months ago

    Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

    Sounds to me like they just want to keep that umbrella waiver in the Disney+ agreement rather than have that, rightly, struck down in court. They are very much still working under the assumption that a subscriber clicking “I Agree” to watch The Mandalorian waives any right to trial against any business unit of Disney Corp for any reason.

    Absolutely despicable.

    • Rooki@lemmy.world
      1031·
      3 months ago

      You agreed to Disneys TOS

      Assassins from Disney licking their fingers because they can legally kill you /j

      Its the dumbest death you can have in an amusement park, dying because the restaurant didnt labeled their allergies right and that the corporation tries to dismiss it because of an DIGITIAL contract that was made for a digital service.

      But this is the bs that you got by applying law so freely.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
        58·
        3 months ago

        Yep, exactly.

        They’re asserting and graciously waiving a “right” they invented themselves in order to keep that from being challenged in court.

        • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
          15·
          3 months ago

          Just this time, because I care about Disney so much, I’m waiving my right to steal from Disney.

      • Mac@mander.xyz
        1·
        3 months ago

        They’ll set this precedent eventually. It will only take a few tries and especially against someone who cant fight back.

    • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
      40·
      3 months ago

      An umbrella arbitration clause like this, if it were argued at court, surely would only be held up for cases related to Disney+. At least one would hope. Having such an agreement cover entirely separate arms of a company is ridiculous.

      • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
        60·
        3 months ago

        Arbitration contracts, especially in click-through licenses, are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

        • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
          34·
          3 months ago

          Arbitration contracts especially in click-through licenses are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

          There should be no reason why a corporation ahould be able to avoid the justice system for any reason.

          • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
            14·
            3 months ago

            I could see very specific cases where arbitration makes sense with a very well defined scope. “Parties agree that disputes over widget quality related to this agreement are to be adjudicated by the Widget Quality Counsel”. The courts are not always the best arbiters for every dispute.

            However, what we have now is every corporation finding ways to slide arbitration clauses of global scope into every transaction. That is always bullshit.

            • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              3 months ago

              If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.

        • TipRing@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          3 months ago

          All unilateral contracts where one side holds all the cards and can arbitrarily dictate or even alter previously agreed to terms should be held to the strictest standards. This includes employment agreements, terms of service, license agreements and so on.

          Contracts between equals can be more permissive.

          • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
            3·
            3 months ago

            Agreed. It’s pretty telling that none of these corporations would accept an open ended arbitration clause in their dealings with any other corporation.

    • trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org
      8·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, imo they got worried that people would start asking government agencies to make legislation about things like this, so theyd rather backtrack now so they can keep it as part of their TOS.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    225·
    3 months ago

    “We got caught by the public, and we want to keep this excuse possible in the future. So we’re dropping it from now so the court doesn’t set a legal precedent that will fuck us over.”

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    140·
    3 months ago

    Arbitration is an abomination, abused to quash the rights of regular people who could hardly afford to take a stand against the big guy in the first place.

    That a person can sign away their legal rights at all is a miscarriage of justice.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      191·
      3 months ago

      Arbitration, generally, is not a bad idea. It’s less formal and usually less expensive when you have a disagreement. It really is designed for, say, two friends who are going into business together and want to keep things friendly while giving each other the ability to seek an external arbitor.

      However, it’s our late stage capitalism that has made forced arbitration an abomination, with corporations seeking to limit their liability by making it unprofitable for individuals to seek legal remedies against very large corporations. Corporations that have the legal equivalent of nukes verses the average customer who has a peashooter.

      I’m at the point whenever I see these clauses to snail mail then my own terms and if they don’t react, I assume that my terms were accepted. I’ve been doing this now for the last few years and have yet to have a company shut off my service or reply back.

      • Null User Object
        7·
        3 months ago

        snail mail then my own terms and if they don’t react, I assume that my terms were accepted.

        I’m pretty sure you haven’t run this strategy by a lawyer. If you’ve actively agreed to their terms and they haven’t responded to your counter terms… How do you imagine a court is going to interpret that?

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          82·
          3 months ago

          I use their exact same language of “by continuing to allow access to the system, you agree to the terms.”

          I am not a lawyer but the way I see it, there is no downside.

          • if it’s accepted by a court, then I win
          • if it’s not accepted, then the language itself is now influx, opening the door for me or others to use the ruling to continue to chip away at forced arbitration and I’m no worse off than just accepting their terms
      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        3 months ago

        However, it’s our late stage capitalism

        It’s not capitalism. It’s rent-seeking, which is what came before capitalism. The “Free Market” that Adam Smith talked about wasn’t a market free from regulations, it was a market free from economic rents, free from monopolies, etc. The big problems we’re seeing now aren’t because we have too much capitalism, it’s because the capitalism we have is shifting more towards rent-seeking, monopolies, artificial scarcity, etc. It’s basically feudalism. In a proper capitalist system you have competition. That’s the “free market”. If someone doesn’t like the decisions a business is making, they’ll switch to another one.

        Companies can only get away with the kinds of things Disney tries when they don’t have to worry about competition. In other words, it’s no longer a capitalist system, it’s a rent-seeking business. Disney is built around its intellectual property, and IP is nothing but rent-seeking. Nobody can compete with Disney and make a better Star Wars movie because Disney owns the rights to anything Star Wars related.

      • Glemek@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Do you sent via certified mail or something else that has proof of receipt, and how do you decide who at the company to send it to?

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    137·
    3 months ago

    I fucking hate Disney.

    With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach

    Yeah if they possessed sensitivity they would’ve never tried this. The only reason they changed their mind is public backlash which would’ve been obvious to foresee.

    So they’re myopic and insensitive. Also just cruel. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if they could’ve gotten away with this. It’s straight evil to try it.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      72·
      3 months ago

      They said they decided to waive their right to arbitration. They still think that’s their right, fucking sickening.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      59·
      3 months ago

      I’d say actually the only reason they backed down is because they realized they were going to lose and didn’t want to risk their arbitration clause getting struck down in a court.

      • KingBoo@lemmy.world
        22·
        3 months ago

        This was exactly it.

        They’ll wait for a case they can win for sure and let court precedent destroy their customers following.

        If the reversed happened, it would be a massive win for consumers. The mouse can’t allow that.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      That made me so angry!

      When this story first came up, an Ars Technica commenter explained that the only thing to do in this scenario is to grieve with the widow, and that it was a ludicrous fight to have. It’s pretty bad for Disney to pretend like they agree with that viewpoint after already putting the widow through more distress.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    131·
    3 months ago

    we decided to waive our right to arbitration

    Fuuuuck you with an umbrella. You didn’t have that right, you just used that bullshit idea to save yourself from rightful consequences. You only stopped that idea after the massive backlash, as always. You don’t get to act like the good guy uere., fuck you.

    I can’t wait for Disney to go bankrupt and be split up in twenty normal entertainment companies

    • Killer_Tree@sh.itjust.works
      103·
      3 months ago

      Do you have some reason why you think they will be bankrupt and/or split up?

      I wouldn’t hold my breath for a bankruptcy - Disney has Gross profits of ~30 Billion a year and net profits of ~2-5 Billion a year. Even if their lawyers become completely incompetent and allow them to be sued for max penalties every month of the year, it wouldn’t even be a drop in the bucket.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        2·
        3 months ago

        The parks have been running at a loss and they’ve been spending like crazy on acquisitions and running all said acquisitions into the ground

      • FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world
        1010·
        3 months ago

        I met a shitposter from modern social media,
        Who asked with a frown, wrinkle lip
        And sneer of cold contempt:

        “Do you have some reason why you think
        This company with vast amounts of these
        stamped lifeless things
        Will go bankrupt and/or split up?”

        But regardless of all the corp-simping,
        In the future, only these words survive.

        "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

        Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

        Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

        Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

        The lone and level sands stretch far away."

          • FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world
            21·
            3 months ago

            Some kind of Stockholm syndrome i guess.

            This companies violates us constantly, but most people are so traumatised by ads and social presure that they don’t see it anymore.

            I put ads before social presure due to comedy, but also:

            Ads eats brains. Thus creating mindless consumers. Oh look, the perfect consumer!

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    119·
    3 months ago

    we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration

    That’s legalese for “We still think that we have that right, we will use it again”.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.caEnglish
      56·
      3 months ago

      That’s legalese for “We still think that we have that right, we will use it again”.

      Or for “we don’t want this to get invalidated in court - we need to save it so we can intimidate someone else in the future”.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      35·
      3 months ago

      “Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn’t have everyone so riled up and hating us.”

    • Bojimbo@lemmy.world
      10·
      3 months ago

      I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.

    • Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
      18·
      3 months ago

      They could settle out of cout for an amount that they could earn back in under a week. Now they wanna go to court where they’ll end up paying more. Get fucked Disney

  • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    32·
    3 months ago

    I’m just confused how anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Surely the strong public backlash could have been easily anticipated.

  • Krzd@lemmy.world
    19·
    3 months ago

    “unique circumstances” we got caught and too many people heard about it

  • sartalon@feddit.nlEnglish
    13·
    3 months ago

    Jesus, this story made me feel so fucking gross. So fucking disgusting what they were trying to do.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    13·
    3 months ago

    I don’t advocate the high seas.

    But man, a TOS like this makes me glad I didn’t watch Andor via Disney+. I certainly don’t feel bad about it now.

    And to the Disney legalbot, I watched it via a friend, of course.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      2·
      3 months ago

      I mean this is actually an ethical argument to be pro piracy.

      Trying to use the terms of service for a streaming service in order to sweep a death under the rug is completely insane and no one should give money to company like that.