Submitted 1 month ago by hahattpro@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/01/new-jersey-uber-eats-car-crash
This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.
You press ‘Agree’, you lost the right to sue the company.
I used to wonder what happened to kids who would always change the rules in the middle of a game like, “nuh uh nuh uh I have a shield around my whole body that blocks lasers,” so that they never ever lose. I thought they just grew out of it but now I realize they all became corporate lawyers for tech companies
Or became tech bros themselves and now want the world to cater to them.
Just learned this is Usha Vance, I think? Would explain some things… (JD Vance said his wife is a “corporate litigator” or something like that, in the recent US Vice Presidential debate)
the problem here is obviously corporations running the world. the solution is obviously terrorizing them into submission. the government ain’t gonna save you.
AntinCorponTerrorism… Cyberpunk much…
You best start believing in ghost stories cyberpunk dystopias. You’re in one! - cyborg Captain Barbossa
Disney may have abandoned this strategy with their wrongful death suit, but they pioneered it for other shitty companies. Great. This is reality now.
I realize that there is no way for me to argue this without sounding like some sort of neck beard corporate shill; but if you truly believe that the Disney+ debacle was at a basic level - Evil corporation uses despicable loophole to leave innocent widower stuck with the consequences of corporate negligence - then you really don’t know anything about that case at all, and singing in harmony with the endless voices parroting the same misinformation is not something you should be proud of.
Fuck Disney, all day, every day, forever. No doubt. But they tried to use a tactic that was EVERY BIT as disgusting as the one that roped them into the lawsuit to begin with. It is extraordinarily likely that Disney was going to be released from that suit but after the PR spin, they decided to throw the guy a bone just to save face. We don’t have to agree that Disney was somehow being magnanimous, but they chose to take one on the chin that apparently only they and Legal Eagle knew they would get out of.
I don’t have a problem with people spitting at Disney, but at least do it for a truthful and reliable reason.
I clicked through to see your reply explaining further, but this reply sucked. You didn’t explain shit in it.
For sure benefit of those that haven’t seen the LegalEagle video, why was Disney likely to be released from the suit?
Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.
But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.
And they’ll keep getting away with it as long as corporations are treated better than actual people. And you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them. And every time we get complacent or blame someone else, it only gets worse.
you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them
That’s only half of the problem: even if you carefully read what you agree to, if you refuse agreements that include a forced arbitration clause, you have no other choice because all companies foist it on you.
In other words, if you refuse forced arbitration, you essentially have to opt out of normal life, because there are no alternatives.
In this specific case, society could have built a more fair transportation system, such as safe public transit, effectively providing an altnative to uber and a way to avoid agreeing to the terms.
Ok I think this should finally bring to light how TOS should not be enforceable contracts. As 1- its common knowledge that the average person does not read TOS. Therefore, it should be unreasonable to expect the average consumer to have completely understood what they have agreed to, without any legal representation to clarify the contract 2 - TOS are written like legal jargin straight from the legal department. Unfortunately, the client base is either 10 year olds lying about their age, 80 year olds who barely understand what a TOS is, and the average consumer who was never presented with a contract, just a simple “Accept or Decline” 3 - If TOS is meant to be as enforceable as it is, then we need a new set of data laws / seperate justice system to actually regulate those TOS. From what I understand, real life laws still apply to contracts where both parties consented. Aka, even if you agreed to kill someone who wanted to die, murder is illegal.
I hope we can bring some real change instead of letting this go to the side too. I was hoping the Disney thing would be bigger than it was, but then again who’s taking Disney to court and surviving? It’s sad to think they can get away with this, and its sadder to know we’re less valuable than the data we produce.
Fun fact: in Germany, anything “unexpected” they write in TOS is not legally binding, because everyone knows noone reads it.
Also any clause like this would be thrown out as a violation of laws anyways. You cannot deny a party to seek damages for events completely unrelated to the scope of the contract. Especially not indefinitely into the future or for actions subject to criminal law.
That sounds perfectly reasonable…
“This comment is way too long.”
presses Agree
Heck half the time my screen reading software glitches out on ToS pages, so I just have to assume I’m selling my soul but hopefully not much else and click accept because it’s not like I’m going to find someone to sit and read it out to me, that would take hours!
And yet for every other contract I have ever signed in my entire life, I have a legal right to ask for it in an accessible form before I sign it. As a visually impaired person, uber is present in my life.
I hated it, it was the most inaccessible app for such a purpose, and the drivers really did not understand I can’t see what they see. I like just calling the depot, talking to a human, and booking a cab… But you can’t do that now either because when you call you wait on hold for 20 minutes while the automated message tells you about the taxi app.
So now unfortunately, uber is easier to book than a taxi, I don’t know if the ToS in the taxi app has any harmful stuff about arbitration because again, I’ve never been able to get a screen reader to read out the ToS properly on any app!
I feel like such a boomer, but I am really feeling more and more isolated as every service Abdi connection I’ve built my life around is moving online into a digital visual space faster than the affordable assustive technology can keep up with.
I’m expected to read something on a screen when I physically can not, uber and similar apps, including the app my local state government brought in during covid that now holds much only transit ID to show transit staff I’m blind (to get l transport assistance at train stations) all do this.
Once you open the wallet section of the app, for fraud prevention they disabled third party screen readers from reading anything on the app.
I have to open my app, then ask the other person to look through my wallet for me to find the card because I can’t, it’s such a privacy violation.
Companies really don’t put much effort into making these readable or accessible.
Many websites I’ve used it’s even a broken link, there’s nothing to read but I’m expected to agree anyway.
The terms are usually extremely long and repetitive, they’re not designed to be actually read by people.
I actually loved how Larian wrote the ToS for Baldurs Gate 3. It’s written as if it is a warlock pact.
It’s the first time I have actually read a ToS in years.
Well, that’s common law for you.
Most of the world has continental law where most of these things would be written in a law somewhere and unenforceable through TOS as those provisions would be deemed in conflict with the law and therefore void.
This is fucked. But I have a question. Why does Uber need to bother relying on the daughter’s agreement with Uber Eats? Surely the parents as Uber ride share users already agreed to similar terms no? Is this their way of testing this in court to see how far they can push it and set a precedent?
their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via **her mom’s ** Uber Eats account.
Yes but wouldn’t the parents already have agreed to such terms when they first signed up for Uber, long before their daughter clicked to accept the updated terms on Uber Eats (which presumably is a different app.)
Well, I won’t be using Uber any more. Right alongside bring produced by Disney.
Fuck both of them.
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.
Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed
I get we hate Disney but spreading misinformation is never cool.
It was a move to move it to arbitration not to dismiss the lawsuit.
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.
He was also merely acting as an agent for her estate, not suing them personally, and she hadn’t agreed to any arbitration
Did Disney do something recently?
They tried the exact same thing not too long 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.
Cyberpunk 2077 was on to something about Corpos. This is just evil.
Not Cyberpunk 2077, but cyberpunk - the genre of science fiction.
CDPR didn’t invent it - it’s been a thing for many decades.
what the fuck… Really? Again?
“How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man!?”
I hope the state supreme court allows them to keep their right to a jury trial. It clearly states in our 7th amendment it is preserved for any case above $20 and that it will always be upheld. There is no alternative in the wording, it is so clearly written and if it is ignored I want to see all the judges bank account and donations because the constitution for jury trials are clearly written and cannot be told in any other way.
Human lives have been deemed valueless it seems. Only worth as much as they have already produced and nothing more.
Not by the average person mind you but by every person above that has reduced humanity to numbers and economic performance. Why care when the person can be replaced or the product they make reproduced through automation or cheaper labor elsewhere. People are just the cogs that are worth as much as they are currently valued at and it must be reduced to make those that feel worth more than the rest of us feel even more powerful and necessary.
We have forgotten the worth of human effort and lives not yet lived while some get distracted with hypotheticals of specific people or ones that don’t yet exist.
Fuck this reality. Fuck the reduction of humanity because of the will of those that hate others. We need to deal with now and our idea of what matters.
Only american lives sadly. The rest of us have always been expendable.
I do feel sorry for the american people. It seems you are gonna get the same treatment as the rest of the worlds underdogs now.
Just hope eXXon doesn’t find oil under your house.
Why does the law allow this? Where in from you can write whatever the fuck you want on a contract but it doesn’t make it legal. If the shit in the contract is insane , a court would just refuse to enforce it
Well, that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases, and almost certainly what’s going to happen here.
That’s not to undercut how shitty a practice it is, it mostly serves to discourage and dissuade people from trying to sue in the first place.
There absolutely needs to be a penalty for even trying bullshit like this. Maybe disbarring whatever lawyer thought it was a remotely good idea will send a message
Inb4 a few decades down the line “Father blocked from suing Amazon after their death squads gunned down his entire family for sharing his prime video account, say they agreed to Amazon terms”
Inb4 a few decades
a few decades is a long time, I think it will happen in under 2 years
Anarchists used to blow up corporate buildings for this shit. Corporations these days need more fear of behaving like this. Courts need to stop allowing this shit. Legislators need to ban these practices. Prosecutors need to sue these companies to force courts to rule on this bullshit.
For anyone needing this www.pandadoc.com/blog/how-to-terminate-contract
Uber was taking notes from Disney.
So they were in an Uber, and ordered food on Uber eats, then the Uber driver crashed? Did I read that right?
Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid. The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that that was legally binding for all Uber interactions
I’m surprised we don’t hear more about judges getting shanked for their shit reasoning.
Not quite, the parents created an Uber Ride and Uber Eats accounts several years ago, agreeing to the ToS at that time.
Several months ago, uber updated the tos and pushed it out to unerringly users as a pop up agreement.
The daughter was monitoring the phone to watch the driver and pizza on the map when the pop up blocked the app, the daughter, being a minority who wanted her to pizza just hit “accept” to go back to the app to watch get pizza.
Several months later, the parents hooked an uber ride, where the driver crashes and injured the parent’s.
Uber is claiming that because the daughter agreed to the ToS, the new ToS is valid.
The parents only ever had the opportunity to read the original ToS, which also has a similar arbitration clause, which is why the lawyer is saying the daughters pizza situation was mooting. But the two ToS are different because one is an updated version of the other.
Uber are pulling the same shit as Disney.
Apparently if you have ever ever ever accepted a Disney + account, and you have a family member die in a restaurant that is owned by Disney or dies in the theme park, you can’t sue Disney
And this is Uber doing the same thing. Uber driver crashed into a vehicle and because the woman in the car had ordered something on Uber eats she cannot sue an Uber driver ever.
Well, you absolutely can because the argument was immediately withdrawn as completely unenforceable, just like this certainly will be.
Unless the driver wasn’t insured properly, Taxis cover your bodily injuries in an accident. They should have no medical bills associated with it, and the article is kinda vague on that. If anything they should be taking this up with the insurance company. Unless the driver wasn’t insured properly, and Uber didn’t do their diligence then yeah it’s on Uber.
This seems like these people are trying to sue for more than that though?
Do i believe that Uber is being shady trying to pull some garbage about a separate TOS, yeah that’s shady. They should take it to the next level of appellate courts, which I believe would be the Supreme Court now.
Though this isn’t apples to apples of the Disney thing.
Another reason to avoid uber of any sort.
Uber looked at Disney and thought “hmm yummy, get us some of those sweet backlashes”.
I don’t think we are ordering Uber taxis anymore
All Headline Lives Matter
This should be illegal, all these companies want to make money with 0 risk to them. Get em out of NJ!
The US has twice as many parties as china.
ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Forced arbitration is unjust and should be outlawed. It’s only legal in 7 countries: UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, China and India.
That’s right: 4 countries that are essentially US lapdogs, two shitty dictatorships and one that’s on the fast track towards becoming one.
Also, you can totally see how America is so much better and totally different than China. The more I look at both, the less I can tell the difference.
But at least in the United States, there is hope.
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
It’s not really legal in the UK. It’s unenforceable on claims under 5k and for claims over 5k the courts will make a case by case decision if arbitration is appropriate.
herbertsmithfreehills.com/…/click-to-agree-techno…
However, lots of companies still add these bullshit clauses as a way to bully people out of seeing a lawyer.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 month ago
For sure and, even then, in uk law, you can’t sign away your right to take regular legal action against someone who caused you damage, due to their illegal actions. Something like the one in the article would be, rightly, dismissed as a repugnant clause.
calcopiritus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It should be illegal for companies with a legal budget over X€ to have illegal clauses on their terms and conditions.
anonymous111@lemmy.world 1 month ago
FYI it is the other way around. The British Empire spread Common Law around the world. Here is a Wikipedia’s Page (Common Law section) which explains the spread:
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_national_legal_systems
This is why we occasionally get courts referring to Ancient precedents from England.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
The Whitehouse is 12 years overdue for its 200-year reno. Are you angling to get it done for free?
SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Just gonna leave this here…
Taiatari@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
The US has twice as many parties as China. If that ain’t a major difference then I don’t what is /s
the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Busting out a variation of the quote you think goes here:
-Noam Chomsky
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Off topic, but since this is Lemmy, I choose to interpret your political assessment as,
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
US lapdogs? If you look at the list all those countries were influenced or under control by the British Empire.
redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I mean, that’s true, but correlation v causation and all that. The list of countries “owned or influenced by” the British Empire includes a lot more than just these 7, and yet the forced arbitration club is a small one, so I’m not 100% sure I agree with your police work there, Hal.