Comment on US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms

Soup@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. His 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.

  source

  • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed

    I get we hate Disney but spreading misinformation is never cool.

    1. It was a move to move it to arbitration not to dismiss the lawsuit.

    2. Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant, so any suit mentioning them is a pointless endeavour put forth by a money grubbing lawyer profiting from a family’s grief.

    source

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant,

      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.”

      source
    • irish_link@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      1. 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.

      2. 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.

      source

      • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Malek061@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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?

      source

      • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts

        This wasn’t one of Disney’s restaurants though. They owned the land it was on but had no say over management.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • ZMonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    He was also merely acting as an agent for her estate, not suing them personally, and she hadn’t agreed to any arbitration

    source
• drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Did Disney do something recently?

  source

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    They tried the exact same thing not too long ago.

    source

    • drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Oh yeah, I forgot about injustice in the sea of injustice that has been the last few years.

      source

      • NutWrench@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Well. what are supposed to do? Stop voting for a$$holes? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ZMonster@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    FYI, the disney situation that people are referring to here is a very complicated legal situation rife with bad actors. The reporting on it was broadly mishandled by the media, so legal professionals have broken it down. It is far more nuanced than people here are making it out to be and the simple narrative that you will see getting upvoted entirely mischaracterizes what actually happened (ie happened according to both disney and the plaintiff, yes they both agree). But due to the fact that disney kind of comes out of the situation looking like - dare I say - the good guy (or at least the gooder one), people have latched onto the misinformed simplistic narrative because it requires less effort and falls into the evil corporation trope. So instead of making any claims here, because I’m exhausted from arguing with Internet babies and I have a ketamine therapy today, I encourage you to watch Legal Eagle’s breakdown of the case.

    I’m not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that this is a complex topic that has been mishandled by the media. I work in an extremely remote location with thousands of people that might as well be flat-earthers, so being truthful is extremely important to me. And we will need honest discourse if we as a society are ever going to overcome the misinformation brainworm that US politics has put on steroids. Good luck.

    source