Disney argues it was legal to kill a doctor because she had a Disney+ trial once

Comments

• revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • timewarp@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • daisyKutter@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Because she had a trial if I read it correctly. So the dismissal is baseless

    source

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨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.

      source
• timewarp@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’ll be cancelling my Disney bundle subscription after this. I seriously hope they get billions from Disney after this. Nothing I hate more than companies trying to abuse arbitration clauses. No one in their right mind would think Disney+ subscription would impact their legal rights at a park. Now I know why Disney+/Hulu/etc moved to a MyDisney account. It was because of shenanigans like this where they wanted to try to make a contract that applies to every Disney property imaginable.

  source

  • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You might want to re-read that… This is saying they signed up for a 1-month free trial in 2019. It sounds like they haven’t even had a subscription for the last 5 years but the lawyers are still trying to argue that it applies.

    source

    • timewarp@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes I know this. They include terms that automatically adapts all new agreements too. Even if 5 years ago they didn’t have as broad of a contract, businesses constantly update their terms to strengthen and expand stripping away consumer rights.

      source
• XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not legal to kill her, but absolve themselves of a food-related death from a Disney property because the language in the disney+ terms say “all dispute swith the company shall be arbitrated”

  source
• admin@lemmy.my-box.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Can you take your unopinionated headlines somewhere else? This is a technology community.

  source

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It does suggest tech users should think twice about the scope of the arbitration clauses in the user agreements they sign.

    source
• Bell@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  A new low

  source
• Teknikal@eviltoast.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wow. I bet their just trying to drag the case out until the guy can’t afford it. If something like this was successful none of us stand a chance against any company legally anymore.

  source
• chakan2@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That’s some pretty hardcore click bait.

  They’re arguing her estate has to go to arbitration. They’re not arguing they are absolved of guilt.

  It’s pretty ugly already, but the title is sensational bullshit.

  source
• PunchingWood@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is the most ridiculous American thing I’ve read in a long time.

  They really went above and beyond to look for any “legal” excuse to get away with it. Whoever suggested to even use this as a defense can’t possibly be a human being. What an absolutely disgusting low-point for such a company…

  source
• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  FTC, theres a company here that got so big it thinks its internet video app terms absolve it’s completely seperate theme park from being sued. If that’s not too big to exist then nothing is.

  source
• 299792458ms@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  lol wut?

  source