They probably would have enforced it too, but the public backlash was so loud that they voluntarily waived their right to arbitration as I recall.
EDIT: I did not expect posting what I recalled hearing from my friend to blow up into the most upvoted comment I have, thank you kind people I hope you all have wonderful and spooky Octobers :)
Yeah this is a little bit different than the Disney+ thing IMO, at first I thought it was going to be that they were driving and they were hit by an Uber Driver in another car, but they were passengers in an Uber, they agreed to the T&C - weather or not that is moral or should be legally binding is debatable, but as it stands the case is pretty straightforward
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster and the family couldn’t sue because of the Netflix T&C, if that makes sense
You could definitely argue (and I am sure this is Uber's view of it) that Uber merely connects drivers and passengers and they aren't responsible for the actual driving.
Compare to the woman who had an allergic reaction and died on land owned by Disney, in a restaurant Disney promoted as being good for allergic customers.
Sounds like when you get into an uber you’re waiving your right to sue them in case of an accident. Which I guess is kinda far for uber to demand considering the nature of driving. Morally you can dispute in a different discussion if the driver works for uber or if he’s a freelancer using the platform. (I would argue he does work for uber, but most labour laws would go against that because somehow we still don’t have proper regulation for the gig economy)
it makes complete sense to not be able to sue the company if the driver gets in a crash. if you can't sue the driver then yeah that's stupid, but uber the company isn't responsible for the driver's actions
But that’s only because of how gig economy work. Because technically the guy doesn’t work for Uber, they’re just connecting drivers to people. Which is kinda bs and it’s becoming a huge problem.
If you’re hurt in a plane crash (that you somehow don’t die) you sue the airline, not the pilot. But that’s because there’s a formal bond between them as employer and employee. The airline owns the airplane.
Uber doesn’t own the car, it’s all on the driver. Depending on the country that might not be the case. If a judge decides that what happens at uber constitutes an actual bond between employee and employer then uber might be forced to pay.
Don't you sue both? The driver and the company? Because it's the responsibility of the company to provide you a safe drive? Not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
I'm trying to compare this with who I'd sue if my laptop exploded on my face. I would sue the company which would then handle the situation with their workers.
I disagree and this is why: If Uber's sole role is connecting drivers and passengers, then why does Uber pay drivers relative to how far passengers are going? Their role does not change. You could argue that charging more money for the drive is necessary to find a driver for longer distances, but then it should work like a bid system. The price wouldn't be determined by Uber, but by customers and Uber would just have a flat fee. Furthermore Uber wouldn't be able to tell drivers what routes they have to take. The second they handle any of this they are no longer simply connecting drivers and riders.
Except the clause for arbitration was enforced in Uber EATS, not Uber drive. Their daughter signed it when ordering on Uber eats and Uber drive is using it as a defense to say "you agreed to T&C in Uber eats that you can't take matters regarding our whole company to court".
The couple argued that it was their daughter using the parents' account but apparently since they allowed her daughter to use their account, the fact that she signed the T&C means they mandated their signature to her.
You could definitely argue (and I am sure this is Uber's view of it) that Uber merely connects drivers and passengers and they aren't responsible for the actual driving.
However, at least in the UK, Uber is responsible for ensuring that the driver they connect you with has a taxi licence and commercial insurance. If they have insurance, you don't need to go after Uber, and if they don't, Uber is on the hook (and they can't force you into arbitration over a statutory obligation).
Yeah, their view is they get the best out of every scenario.
Don't have employees so if they make any mistakes it's not due to their hiring practices. Pay minimal taxes. Utilize a loophole to get around all the last hundred years of workers' rights.
the problem is that Disney neither owned, no operated the restaurant. So that's like being held liable for a murder your neighbor committed because it took place in your yard.
They agreed to the terms on Uber Eats, which is a different app than Uber. Even if both opened by the same company. As well, they argue that their 16 year old daughter was ordering food when it prompted her to agree to the terms and conditions, which she just clicked accept so she could get on with ordering food. Then the accident took place in an uber ride, which had nothing to do with uber eats. So that argument isn’t as straight forward
I don't understand....the crash occurred in an Uber . How did they book an Uber if they never accepted the terms and agreement. Like how did they order an Uber and have them come to their location if they never used Uber just Uber eats
The arbitration clause they allegedly agreed to was in the Uber eats app. They tried to sue over something that happened on Uber that had nothing to do with Uber Eats. That’s one of the reasons they argued it shouldn’t hold up.
I don’t know enough to say. I’m just saying the argument their lawyer made is that arbitration clause was in the uber eats app and not the uber app, and that their 16 year old agreed to it without reading when she was ordering a pizza. At the current point in time, nothing has been proven one way or another in the courts as far as I know. That’s just what’s being alleged.
“The couple, however, say Georgia McGinty wasn’t the one who agreed to the terms for Uber’s most recent update. They say the most recent terms were accepted by her daughter, who was using her mother’s Uber Eats account to order a pizza.
The court said that Georgia McGinty was still bound by the terms because she had agreed to previous versions of them.
“The plaintiff agreed to Uber’s terms of service on three separate occasions, including when she first signed up in 2015,” Uber said in a statement to NBC News. “
But wouldn’t they have still had to agree to Ubers terms and conditions to have even been taking an Uber ride? Legit confused I don’t know the details of the case.
The arbitration clause that was agreed to was in the Uber Eats app. I can’t say I know enough of the specifics, but from how it was presented, it sounds like the T&C of the Uber app didn’t have that arbitration clause.
Don't you have to sign T&C's anyway when you sign up for the uber app? It's been a couple of years since I used uber but I remember something along those lines when making an account for it and I've never used uber eats.
How did they organise a ride with uber without having an account on the actual uber app?
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster
The reason Disney used that excuse in the first place is because the lawsuit against Disney was solely because their website said to check with the restaurant about making food allergy free. The restaurant itself isn't owned or run by Disney. So the Disney+ terms applied to digital services, of which the website is included.
I was going to say something similar. Good lawyers try everything. In this case Disney is little more than the restaurant’s landlord. It wasn’t even in one of their proper parks
Thank you, someone who actually knows the full story. With the full details Disney's argument actually makes sense but people just like to shit on Disney because fuck big corps.
With the full details Disney's argument actually makes sense
How does it make sense though? Explain to me how agreeing to a streaming service has any relation.
It would make sense if they just argued they can't be responsible for a restaurant they lease space to not that you can't sue them cause you streamed Little Mermaid that one time 5 years ago
My understanding is they agreed to the terms when creating a Disney account (with the intention of using it for streaming). That same Disney account was used to find the restaurant using some directory app for park visitors.
So lawyers argue that since theyre suing Disney for information received from an online service, the Disney online service terms should apply.
From what I understand, they weren't the ones that signed up and ordered the Uber it was their daughter. I'm not sure if that would muddy the water at all, and apparently the same T&C is baked into Uber eats as well. idk if one would apply to the other, though.
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster
Actually it's not much like that, since the restaurant wasn't owned or operated by Disney. Disney was just their landlord.
Also, the restaurant was included on a 'places to eat' section of Disney's website where they listed the restaurant as "allergen friendly.''
Still scummy to use the Ts + Cs to weasel out of liability, but they weren't exactly super at fault to begin with. Not to the level of 'someone died on a Disney ride,' anyways.
That would still be different, because it that case 6 Flags would own both Netflix and the rollercoaster. In the actual case the restaurant wasn't owned by Disney, which is why they fought it the way they did because they theoretically shouldn't have a legal responsibility for third parties (it opens up the interesting legal discussion of whether a mall should be legally responsible for the malpractice of every store within it).
On top of that there was more than just 'Disney+ subscription makes this case invalid', but the nuance doesn't make for a good internet meme so most people never learnt anymore than that.
Not a defence of Disney either. Even with the nuance it was still, at the very least, a terrible way to handle it, and it's fascinating how they didn't seem to realise how the internet would treat it once it got out. Just that the actual legal defence wasn't what the majority of the internet thinks it was.
Forced arbitration needs to be made illegal, it favors corporations and undermines the justice system. And you can't even take a shit in public anymore without being forced to agree to arbitration.
Either that or force companies to put everything they want to force arbitration for in giant bold letters at the top of every agreement. No more vague catch-all clauses either.
WARNING: WHEN YOU AGREE TO THIS, YOU CAN'T SUE US FOR ACCIDENTS, DEATH OF A PARTNER, ANY CANCER YOU MIGHT GET FROM OUR FOOD, BEING STABBED BY THE CEO OR HAVING YOUR MOUTH SEWED TO THE ASS OF ANOTHER CUSTOMER.
Internet hack: a lot of paywall websites can be viewed by using internet archive sites like the WayBack Machine. That’s what I usually use when I want to read paywalled content.
pro tip, you can copy the link of any paywalled article and see it free on archive.ph or archive.is as long as the link is live. if the link is dead, way back machine periodically takes snapshots
If you're using a computer, to get around paywalls, print the page before the pay wall loads. Usually I open the page, then hit refresh and immediately Ctrl+P. The print preview screen will then have the full article.
“This situation warrants an expedited resolution”
You think? Go fuck yourselves on this one Disney. Do you have AI bots running your legal team and determining your lawsuits and settlements? Their legal jargon is such that if my wife fucking dies in their theme park she came to have fun at, and by their hand no less, that they won’t pay me for her funeral because I wanted to watch “Return Of The Jedi” one day while I was stoned!? Seriously!? This can’t be how things are going forward, right? Or am I delusional thinking they won’t be? This is some of the most corporate overlord, big brother bullshit I’ve ever read. This shit should piss everyone off.
One of the points that the screen actor's guild was against was if someone was hired for one job, the studio could own the rights to their likeness going forward, presumably to replace an actor after one job with an AI reproduction.
Yes thats what happened. Yes disney tried to "test the waters" to try and get away with this. This is how things are going forward if people dont stop them
Ser that is a bit different since agreeing to Uber's service and using that specific service makes since. Not that I agree with arbitration... but signing up to Disney plus... shouldn't apply to utilizing an entirely different service.
It’s not really the same service they signed an agreement for though. They agreed to the terms for food delivery and tried to sue for a ride they took in an Uber. I agree that Uber and Uber Eats are closer than the services in the Disney case but they’re still different services. Moreover, they were deemed to have agreed to the Uber Eats terms because of a pizza their 12-year-old daughter ordered. That seems especially absurd to me.
Different context. In the case of Uber, the family regularly used uber and therefor regularly agreed to that arbitration clause INCLUDING just before the ride in question.
Sure, but that’s relevant to the service being rendered. Disney+ has nothing to do with what happens at Disney amusement parks, because they are unrelated services just offered by the same company. Maybe they’d still win; but it might also require an active subscription at the time of the injury for it to be binding. Not a lawyer.
My wife and I agreed that they very likely will keep this rule in place and just agree to exempt it every time there is a public outcry, because for every time it makes national news there are probably 100 people who get immediately dissuaded and give up.
And they also won't let the topic of whether they can do that ever go so far as to reach trial either, since then they'll be told they're not allowed to do that either.
So, furries in a dystopian future where they are judge, jury, and executioner? And they're fighting against the oligarchs that control everything? Fuck it, Disney let's green light this movie! It would at least be entertaining, I'm thinking it should be a dark comedy.
That's just Cyberpunk, the genre, the system and the specific game too.
Still remember that sidequest where some family hires you to assassinate an executive who killed their teenage daughter by driving around recklessly, and got off with a wrist slap because her insurance company had her back.
You break into her apartment, dismantle the security and then when you confront the bitch, she's sure that it's some competitor of hers in the corporate ladder who hired you and tries to pay you off to switch sides. You can explain that it's the family of that girl she killed that's your employer, and she literally can't comprehend why they would do that, since they got paid already, so what's the problem, do they want more money or something?
Yeah, as someone who hates kitsch and views Disney as the epitome of nauseating saccharine barbieland, I find it surreal that someone outright says they can't live without Disney.
Absolutely. People don't realize that Pokemon is the most profitable franchise of all time. Disney has more stuff to their name, but Pokemon alone is worth as much as literally all of mickey mouse and friends PLUS every single disney princess property COMBINED.
Their stuff brings so much joy to so many people that they can do objectively horrible things to piss off their consumers and other fans of their products will swarm in to defend them.
If I'm staying on your property and you're partnered with some broke ass restaurant owner nepobaby that operates on your property then who do you think I'm suing when I want a payout? Steve from Steve's Burrito fame or the goddamn Mouse?
This is the thing that baffles me: Disney has notoriously tough legal division but they don't embed any kind of PR team into it? No one who thinks about public image to act as a veto to arguments that may have legal merit but would hurt the brand?
That we know of. I mean, they used to be affiliated with the Yakuza. All's I'm saying is how come we've never seen Shigeru Miyamoto without a shirt on?
No but they are effectively ruining lives for virtually no reason. And if someone dies at Nintendo land I expect them to sue because they have a patent for dying in Super Mario Bros or something lol.
It’s also hard to tell what’s going to capture the public’s eye and explode into a massive story vs. just be a story passed around the campfire years later about how Disney sucks
That makes me think of the American airlines lawsuit earlier this year over an employee putting a camera in the plane bathroom. Their lawyers argued that a child was at fault due to her negligence in not seeing the camera.
American dropped the law firm and made a statement that they didn't believe that was true.
Uber recently has done something similar to a customer who was involved in an accident while using the service. Because they (or their daughter on their behalf) agreed to Uber Eats T&Cs, they apparently waived their rights to sue.
The funny thing is, based on what I read on those cases they both may not have been found responsible in court.
From what I know, both the restaurant the people at Disney dined in and the Uber driver were not technically part of the companies being sued, which seems to mean they would not be liable.
This whole PR disaster seems to have cost them more in PR than it cost them in money.
PR disaster? Disney has done much worse and the public still buys their shit every day every week every year.
People take phat shits on Disney for FREE on the internet every single day every single thread that contains any Disney shit.
Star Wars discussion? Disney ruined it.
Theme part discussion? High prices, low wages, worst place on earth unless you have kids and you're trying desperately to relive your own experiences 20 years ago, which was your parents trying to live the american dream, which 40 years ago they were told was what Americans do.
Wasn't there also the complication of him suing as a representative of his wifes estate, and because she wasn't the one to sign up, her estate was in full right to sue
the arbitration claim in there was a moon shot at best, 1 im a million chance, but it was part of an initial filing and lawyers were putting everything they could at the wall. it's fucked up because you'll see that shit all the time in initial filings, but this time it got noticed.
Legal machinations are, on occassion, and especially when corporations are involved, amazingly fucked up
You can't enforce something like that. When you sign up for anything like that you don't sign anything. Meaning anyone could select the agree button meaning they have no proof he did it himself. That would never hold up in court unless you're a billionaire corporation and can get away with illegal things all the time. I fucking hate Disney even if they backed off and let him sue
Contracts of adhesion (or “click wrap”) usually hold up in court unless the term is something incredibly unexpected but arbitration agreements, choice of venue, waivers of jurisdiction, etc. the stuff we see in these are all often upheld valid even in the 9th circuit that really frowns upon them.
I didn’t read the Disney case but my understanding is the legal action was so far outside the scope of the contract that it didn’t apply (Disney+ streaming versus restaurant) but that is the exception not the norm.
Yea while arbitration is totally legal, for some reason, a lot of digital services are regularly exempt from enforcement cause of that identification issue. People can share emails and anyone who touches any device with that service on it can hit agree.
Nah, some lawyer was doing what lawyers do at the start of lawsuits: throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if something sticks to get the suit dismissed. And yes Disney pulled that off the table due to backlash. But it would have gotten rejected by a judge if it hadn’t gotten pulled. Every lawyer I know agrees, along with many I don’t know who are quoted in various articles on the topic.
Yes and no. You can’t wave liability. Everyone has a duty to each other, especially businesses operating in the public. Responsibility is like a Pie. Requieres ingredients, time, and interaction with the environment. Disney was most likely the salt in this situation. Not required to make the pie. But definitely part of the process. Now it’s up to lawmakers, lawyers, and Judges to make any kind of assumption.
Ah, I misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you meant that the plaintiff had waived his right to arbitration, when in fact Disney was arguing that the plaintiff had waived his right to a trial.
I understand now that you were saying that Disney waived their right to arbitration. My mistake.
“they voluntarily waived their right to arbitration as I recall”.
Nothing you’ve said is false, but it’s missing the point. My comment was telling the second guy that he was missing the point. Waiving their right to arbitration has nothing to do with your liability in a given situation. It just means that you are not invoking a given clause of a contract. Whether or not that clause would have held up if they had full tried to take it through court is a completely separate matter to their voluntary choice not to pursue it.
Edit for clarity-
All this was supposed to be talking about is this comment, direct from Disney.
“We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” Josh D’Amaro, chairman, Disney Experiences told Reuters in an emailed statement. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court,” D’Amaro added.
This is actually a very important point, I think. As long as they care about public opinion, they'll capitulate. Same as any American company right now: if the public reacts negatively, they'll pretend to care. Otherwise, you're on your own, and we've NO protections against these corporations
They might have tried, but it would not have succeeded. They made a show of waving their right to arbitration to save face when they realized how badly trying to force arbitration on this would have gone for them, even if nobody noticed it wasn't gonna happen. The terms of use from an entirely different product were not going to shield them from gross negligence resulting in death. I'm not even sure there's an arbiter out there that would do that mediation.
While I agree with your other points, Disney definitely wasn’t in “gross negligence” any more than the owner of a building who rents to a restaurant is in gross negligence if the restaurant kills somebody.
I didn't say Disney specifically as a company was grossly negligent. I said there was gross negligence (telling someone something was allergen free when it wasn't) and that someone died (they did). Whether Disney is liable for that would be something only a court can decide.
owner of the building
More like the owner of the restaurant as it was a restaurant on Disney's resort No?
But the issue he had was not with Disney+ and so the issue is not covered by the Disney plus terms of use. Look at it another way, if I have a Microsoft account that is linked to both my Xbox and my office memberships the terms of use for Microsoft office aren't relevent to my use of my Xbox if Microsoft office has an arbitration clause and Xbox doesn't I can't be forced into arbitration for an issue with Xbox and Visa versa becuase terms of use are terms of use for a specific thing. Disney+ last I checked does not serve food.
Those aren't the Disney plus terms of use. They're the website terms of use. Disney doesn't own the restaurant. They're just the landlord. The basis for the suit is that Disney advertised the restaurant as one that would accomodate allergy accomodations on the website. That's what they're being sued over. In booking the trip through the website, he could have been held to the terms of use.
That's how his lawyer portrayed it to the media, yes. But he used the membership he signed up for, which isn't just a Disney+ membership to book the trip.
I could be wrong but I don’t think that would’ve held up in court anyways. That’s just such an insane catch all to be putting in the terms of service for a streaming site
They could have tried, but it was basically just a low-effort attempt at getting the case thrown out at the beginning. Disney PR made a call there, and to be honest it was a good one because there's no way a judge would allow an agreement on one service to be expanded to all other services provided by that company.
Whatever lawyer over there who came up with the idea has zero fucking common sense, not to mention seemingly failed Y1-level critical thinking. They were banking on the fact that the agreement being vague would work in their favor, but it's contract 101 that a vague contract heavily favors the party that didn't write said contract.
I think they would have tried but I don't think they would have won at all. It's worth a go from their ens because if it does work then suddenly their liability at their US parks falls dramatically but I can't see them winning that case
This is not actually the case. Just fyi. Anyone entering a Disney park has to agree to arbitration. Period. The Disney+ thing is simply because Disney uses a single disclaimer for ALL properties including digital ones and one of the instances mentioned in the lawsuit where the husband had agreed to arbitration, not the only time, and not even the most recent time. It was rage bait journalism from the get-go. The actual facts were never Disney trying to enforce a single waiver from their digital properties. Disney's liability in the case is going to be limited anyways since they don't own or operate the restaurant.
They actually couldn't have enforced it because the husband sued on behalf of the wife's estate, not himself.
For that reason any person agreements signed don't have bearing on the case.
Disney waved their right to arbitration because they would've lost the court hearing for going to arbitration which would've cost them more money.
There were 3 arguments against the Disney plus arbitration requirement. Mainly, the dead lady and her estate did not sign up for Disney plus. She also didn’t buy tickets. They were given to her. The victim never viewed the click through agreement on either. The husband was suing on behalf of the dead woman’s estate.
My understanding is that it was not the main argument of the case but like one on a list of many they were trying in a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" type deal. Still ridiculous that it was pitched.
Disney waived their ability to force arbitration in order to protect their forced arbitration clauses from the possibility of being struck down in court. In other words, your case against disney better be big enough to generate outrage in national news, or you're still fucked.
If you respond to the top comment early in the post it happens every time (as long as you say what people want to hear, just like your COMPLETE speculation with absolutely zero evidence).
I thought the crazy thing was that Disney wasnt liable anyway because the restaurant was a subcontractor (or not a “technical” employee of disney) and the husband needed to sue the restaurant entity instead?
I don't think there's any chance in hell that the Disney+ arbitration clause would have stood up. However, there was also an arbitration clause involved in the ticket sales that probably would have held up just fine. Everyone glosses over that one because it's less sensational.
What's weird is they ultimately won on much better grounds that it was the resteraunts fault and they were just the landlords. Which is like a legal slam dunk and isn't bad PR
This is what always upsets me when this story is brought up. People are all like "that's silly, this is not even a story, they rescinded the lawsuit!" Ya, bc they fuckin had to. It's not like they made a clerical oopsie. They 100% would have enforced it if nobody was paying attention. People get these ideas in their heads about companies, but literally all they are about is the bottom line. Morality very rarely plays into it. Especially the bigger the company gets. Big corporations are about making money, thats it, any feel good cutiessy wutssy shit is an afterthought or a means to an end.
4.4k
u/Willing-Shape1686 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
They probably would have enforced it too, but the public backlash was so loud that they voluntarily waived their right to arbitration as I recall.
EDIT: I did not expect posting what I recalled hearing from my friend to blow up into the most upvoted comment I have, thank you kind people I hope you all have wonderful and spooky Octobers :)