• Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    ·
    3 months ago

    Does anyone have a TL;DW? Cause I just smashed the transcript into DuckDuckGo AI Chat on GPT-4o and asked it to summarise it and it came up with this

    In the video, the speaker discusses a legal case involving Disney and a patron who died after being served food that did not accommodate their allergies, despite assurances from Disney and the restaurant. The key point is that the patron's ability to sue Disney was hindered by a forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ agreement, which the speaker argues effectively protects Disney from liability. The speaker emphasizes the irony that if the patron had pirated Disney content instead of paying for it, they might have had a better chance of seeking justice in court. This situation is used to highlight broader frustrations with corporate practices, such as restrictive digital rights management (DRM) and the way companies redefine terms like "purchase" to limit consumer rights. The speaker expresses anger at the notion that paying customers are often treated worse than those who pirate content, arguing that this creates a system that punishes people for doing the right thing. They call for a reevaluation of how companies treat their customers, advocating for fairer practices that do not penalize those who choose to pay for content. The video concludes with a strong critique of corporate policies that prioritize profit over consumer rights and satisfaction.

    Which isn't helping enough

    • matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Disney lawyers are using an arbitration clause in their Disney account agreement to try to dismiss a lawsuit over a death caused by allergies at Raglan Road. You should be able to find the articles from there.

      It's a bit simplistic to say that it's specifically a Disney+ issues.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        ·
        3 months ago

        To summarize differently, their argument goes that if you signed up for a trial of Disney+ (or some other such service), you agreed to an arbitration clause as part of the terms of service.

        They are arguing that the arbitration clause therefore applies to everything Disney-related, even if it's a service unrelated to Disney+.

        I doubt this will stand a court's scrutiny and will likely get tossed as unenforceable for being an unconscionable contract. Still, Disney sucks for even attempting such a maneuver, and it equally sucks that the US legal system is in such a state that they think this is a possible avenue for success.

        • UlyssesT
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          deleted by creator

          • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            ·
            3 months ago

            It's being taken to court in Florida so I'm not sure it'll even have to make it that far. Can't wait for the corporations with captive user bases to start rolling these arbitration clauses in as a paid service for other corporations.

            Sorry, you can't sue ExonMobile for wrongful death, they have an arbitration clause in Comcast's end user agreement for your internet service that they leased. If you wanted to sue ExonMobile you should have not had internet, dummy.

          • Telorand@reddthat.com
            ·
            3 months ago

            I'm less cynical about SCOTUS, but only because they aren't a rubber stamp like the 5th Circuit. They are absolutely beholden to FedSoc and Conservative interests, but I doubt corporations want to be bound by clauses like this from some supplier they do business with, either.

            • UlyssesT
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              deleted by creator

          • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
            ·
            3 months ago

            When I was younger, I used to think politics didn't matter and that all politicians are crooks. Now I know that all politicians are crooks AND politics matters and has real-world consequences.

        • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I wonder how much of it is Disney thinks this might actually work versus the ole delay, delay, delay tactic. Probably a little bit of both.

          • D61 [any]
            ·
            3 months ago

            At this point they get to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

        • the_post_of_tom_joad [any, any]
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          IANAL but i am wondering if Disney is somehow letting this case go as a backdoor way to legitimize arbitration agreements.

          Like, i just can't see Disney not knowing this is the wrong case to push the legitimacy of an arbitration agreement. But if this case somehow legitimized through whachacallit... precedent... that an arbitration agreement, while binding in a primary sense, is not binding for every Disney product, wouldn't Disney (and really every company that uses binding arbitration as part of using their product) consider that a win?

          Because as i understand it, arbitration agreements as a requirement to use a service is still an untested legal grey area. Anything legitimizing them at all would be a win... Right? Againn ianal

        • mbirth@lemmy.ml
          ·
          3 months ago

          The even bigger irony is that he only sued for $50k. That’s peanuts for big D. Their lawyers probably got more for digging up that arbitration clause.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        ·
        3 months ago

        Except Disney lawyers actually cited the clause the in the Disney+ subscription.

        Yes, there's more, but they actually cited Disney+.

        I really can't emphasize that enough.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      hexagon
      ·
      3 months ago

      The video is 2 part, first is the summary of the case and another is about why this argument from Disney is the biggest pro piracy argument.

      Basically, the case is about a doctor who had a food allergy and went to a Disney owned restaurant that promised to cater to people with food allergies. The doctor asked staff 5 times to make sure they were aware of her allergies, and all 5 times they said yes. It's literally the most straightforward wrongful death case ever. But then Disney decided they want to fuck more people over, so they made an argument that the case should tossed and move to arbitration because her husband signed up to Disney streaming service on a free trial, years ago. And Disney is ignoring a lot of other facts, like that husband is not the one suing, her estate is, he cancelled the trial before the period ended, so he wasn't even a subscriber at the time. The streaming site has an arbitration clause, but Disney park doesn't so it doesn't even matter. If the case can't go forward, it will be only because US is a corporate-owned shithole, legally it's a moot argument.

      As far as piracy, it just highlights how fucked up everything is since if the husband just pirated, DIsney couldn't have used that argument in court. So Disney created a situation now that if you want to be able to sue them for your loved one's death - pirate Disney. It's the most pro piracy argument that even the biggest normies can relate to.

      • UlyssesT
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        deleted by creator

        • D61 [any]
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Fuck your magic, free Lilo and Stitch”

          I shout as I start downloading Lilo and Stitch from a torrent

          • UlyssesT
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            deleted by creator

    • riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      ·
      3 months ago

      I gotchu fam.

      Disney big boy, doing bad boy stuff. Oopsy killed someone but says it's ok, might get away with it.

      Buying stuff now is all a service, go old school and buy paper books and pirate digital stuff. If the person who died at Disney had been a pirate, then Disney would be NOT OK MURDERER.

        • riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          ·
          3 months ago

          If the person who died at Disney had not paid for Disney plus, but instead had pirated what they wanted to watch on Disney plus, they would not have signed the contract with Disney plus. That contract forfeited them the right to sue Disney.