Because she had a trial if I read it correctly. So the dismissal is baseless
Comment on Disney argues it was legal to kill a doctor because she had a Disney+ trial once
revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
It’s worse than that. It’s arguing that her estate and surviving husband can’t sue because he had a trial subscription to Disney+. It’s fucking absurd.
daisyKutter@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
After their meal, Piccolo returned to their hotel room, and Tangsuan and her mother-in-law continued to shop at Disney Springs. later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood, self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died.
In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.
From this it seems the husband was the one with the Disney+ trial, and they’re arguing that this lets them off the hook legally for his wife’s death.
timewarp@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Fuck em. I hope the attorneys that argued this and any executive that learned about it and could have stopped it get cancer and suffer in the worst ways imaginable.