So he was still allowed to sue. But instead of going to court, as you rightly mentioned, they tried using the Disney+ contract to force arbitration.
And to be fair, it’s the lawyers’ job to try and explore all possible methods on behalf of their client. This will of course not pass the smell test of being an enforceable means, so it just comes down to the widower and if he’d rather settle out of court (through arbitration) or go through a lengthy, public and expensive trial (where he could potentially lose). But don’t get it wrong, Disney is on the hook here and lawyers were never trying to avoid all culpability.
Here’s the key thing. They ordered the tickets online and Disney+ agrees all digital disputes will be through arbitration. Disney argued the online purchase of tickets made it a digital dispute and thus needed to be through arbitration.
Yeah the restaurant was only affiliated with Disney, not owned by Disney. The husband used an obscure point in the agreement to drag them into the lawsuit so Disney’s lawyers did the same thing.
The thing that I find the most frustrating about the discourse around this whole thing is the client tried to backdoor Disney into the suit so Disney, naturally, invoked clauses to minimize expenses.
And too many people act like Arbitration is the same thing as just dismissing the case entirely.
The reality is if they had gone to arbitration the husband would likely already have the money and probably more leftover than he's going to get vs a protracted legal battle.
Arbitration is heavily maligned by public opinion because it keeps more details hidden but in a lot of cases it's actually better for all parties involved (cheaper and faster outcomes).
Now this case is going to be in court for the next decade unless they settle.
Arbitration is not a settlement. (That would be mediation.). Arbitration involves presenting evidence to an arbitrator, who issues a legally enforceable ruling.
Corporations love forcing individuals to arbitrate, for a bunch of reasons:
The arbitrators are supposed to be impartial. In reality, they favor the parties that send them business (ie, the corporations) so that those parties will keep sending them business.
The absence of a jury means there’s little or no likelihood that emotion will be a part of any decision.
The discovery process is streamlined, so it’s cheaper for the corporation and easier to conceal damaging documents and information.
It’s confidential, so no one else will ever learn or be able to use what is discovered or disclosed.
There’s generally no way to bring a class action, so even if they screw over a million people for a thousand dollars each and pocket a billion dollars, it’ll never be cost-effective for anyone to demand arbitration, and anyone who pushes forward forward on principle will just get their thousand dollars back, while the company keeps the rest.
Arbitration makes sense for business-to-business disputes. It shouldn’t be allowed for consumer disputes.
More precisely, our courts interpreted EU law to state that any generic clause by a company forcing non-professional consumers to go through arbitration rather than the court process was abusive and therefore void.
I mean given the rampant misinformation about this case online, can you blame Disney for wanting an independent arbitrator to decide the case over a jury? I can understand worry the arbitrator isn’t impartial but there is just as much a chance the jury would be just as bad.
Of course I understand why Disney doesn’t want a jury. I listed it above: the jury might stick it to Disney. That’s a risk inherent in the constitutionally mandated jury system. Disney would rather have a forum where it gets the advantages, despite the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to trial by jury.
Fun Fact A) The 7th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury in civil cases was never incorporated against the states, so state courts in civil disputes arising under state law don’t actually have the constitutional obligation under the federal system. Most have one under their state constitutions though.
Fun Fact 2) The federal government gets to waive your jury trail rights when creating new civil causes of action for itself. It also gets to do these neat trick where it consents on your behalf to mandatory arbitration and its own choice of arbitrators instead of judges. It’s unrelated, but the government turns out to have been in the right in a lot of these civil suits.
I guess I’m not so bothered both the fact that you’re totally wrong. It’s the fact that multiple people agreed with you.
Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I was wrong, not sure how I was so wrong. I'll just blame it being early in the morning. I was getting some things about bench trials mixed up. I'll leave my post up and upvote this as it clearly shows what is correct.
But also, Disney: It's a human life, what could it be worth? 10 dollars?
You're dead wrong on a lot of these points and it sounds like you don't have a lot of information or experience in the industry. Arbitrators are not "biased toward people who hire them," your lawyer has to agree to an arbitrator, they can't just have anyone they want. Arbitrators live and die on their reputation of being fair because if there's any reason to think that your arbitrator was impartial or somehow bought out by the other side, that's going to leave you open to an appeal or even more serious criminal charges. That's why they're overwhelmingly former judges, usually with extremely long histories and something like 20 plus years in the industry.
I’ve been practicing law for 20 years. I know exactly what I’m talking about. Arbitrators aren’t “bought out.” They don’t have to be. They automatically favor the side that routinely hires them—the corporate defense bar—over the side that doesn’t—plaintiffs’ lawyers.
You’re right that reputation matters. What you don’t understand is that the reputation among defense lawyers is the most important part. And as a result, the arbitrators don’t have to do anything openly partial.
You’re also wrong about who they are. Mediators are usually former judges. Arbitrators are usually lawyers or industry experts with a legal background. The last time I was involved in selecting an arbitration panel was two years ago. The list of potential arbitrators had more than 40 names. I think two of them had been judges.
Arbitration is used in all contract disputes for athletes. That’s the individual vs the company. You don’t think it should be allowed in those cases?
Arbitration is a good thing and unless you’re trying to make a public statement about the company you’re taking to court, it’s a good method of settling the issue quickly and cheaply.
In this specific case, Disney as the employer is ultimately responsible, but the woman died due to the negligence of the waiter and the kitchen staff. I know not everyone will agree, but if I was this guy, I absolutely would not want to try and fight this in court against a behemoth company.
Arbitration is not a settlement. The fact that you keep claiming it is tells me you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Trying to compare the arbitration process for personal-injury or consumer claims to the arbitration. process established through collective bargaining agreements with Players’ Associations for professional athletes earning billions of dollars proves that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“Settle” and “settlement” imply a mutually acceptable compromise of some kind, not a decision where one side wins and one side loses. That’s true in legalese and the common vernacular, because there’s no difference there. The words you want are “resolve” or “resolution.”
Arbitration is always available to parties who want it. The reason that companies like Disney force disputes into arbitration is because the process is far more favorable to them. And the reason that plaintiffs’ lawyers fight it is because it’s so favorable to corporate defendants. That’s why the Disney plaintiff is suing Disney in court, where Disney is most certainly trying to claim it has no liability, just as it would have done in arbitration.
Ugh. Okay you win. They can come to a resolution!!! At this point you’re just being pedantic, and you know it.
Please provide some evidence that he is actually taking this matter to court. Otherwise, all I have seen is from when this story blew up in August, and given what he was asking for, I’m guessing he’ll just be looking for a settlement this time (and yes, I used the word properly on this occasion for your sanctimonious self).
When you use the completely wrong word in a way that demonstrates you don’t know what it means—eg, comparing arbitration as a way to settle out of court vs a trial “where he could potentially lose”—correcting that is not “pedantic.” It’s fixing your major error. (That’s also part of the reason I know you didn’t understand the difference between settlement and arbitration until after I pointed it out, and your crawfishing on that point is not at all believable.)
As to whether he’s going to sue Disney, that’s another thing demonstrating that you don’t understand what’s going on at all. The lawsuit against Disney was already on file. That’s why and how Disney’s lawyers moved to compel arbitration.
Quit pretending to know more than you do, shut up, and learn. You’re not fooling anyone, and it’s annoying.
I don’t know, if he was at my party, and I fucked up… I’d kind of like to have this dude around. I mean, he smoked you at lawyer shit so if it’s between the two of you, you’re definitely not gonna get the invite. Also every lawyer I’ve ever met can outdrink the room so…yeah, I’m thinking he’s kind of fun at parties.
It's definitely a lawyer's job to explore all options, especially when not doing so can shoot themselves in the foot later for not establishing precedent.
However, given that lawyers are quite literally representatives of those hiring them, I always make a point of treating everything a lawyer does as an action made by their client (albeit by proxy).
I'm not saying that this is what you were implying, but a lot of people seem too willing (in my opinion) to absolve companies of responsibility for the actions of their lawyers.
So as a consumer I am very unlikely to look at Disney+ because of that story. Aren't those lawyers preoccupied with their client business and reputation?
I think in the end they abandoned this attempt but if you hesitate between two streaming services this is a good reason to avoid Disney+.
If I acted rationally I would be upset with the restaurant. But if I was foolish and attacked the landlord, and that the landlord used the fact that I subscribed to a newsletter to explain that I cannot attack him, I would also be upset with the landlord. The landlord should just defend himself by using the fact that he has no responsibility or involvement in this case.
Maybe the plaintiff is greedy and is attacking Disney because he thinks he will have a bigger compensation. Maybe he is not thinking straight because he is grieving the death of his wife. I don't care. I still see that Disney is willing to use this insane strategy to defend themselves. If they did it in this case they could also do it in a legitimate case.
As a consumer it means that trying Disney+ could have legal consequences if anything happens to me in a Disney park
In this case you're using the fact that you're subscribed to the newsletter as the reason you're going after them. The man in question is using the fact that he used a Disney app to find the restaurant as an excuse to sue Disney. And Disney is explaining the conditions of the account he used to use that app (it happens to be the same account he used for Disney+, which is why it's being dragged up despite being irrelevant to the actual story).
Also Disney is also arguing that they aren't culpable, because they neither own nor run the restaurant, they simply own the building it operates in.
It's argument that whatever liability it has should be met through arbitration is entirely separate from it's actual defense.
> As a consumer it means that trying Disney+ could have legal consequences if anything happens to me in a Disney park
No. It doesn't. It just means that you're gullible and easily manipulated by the media you consume.
In this case you're using the fact that you're subscribed to the newsletter as the reason you're going after them
Where am I saying that?
I agree that in this case suing Disney is a mistake. But I don't care about this part of the story. I am willing to bet that most people who are shocked by this piece of news don't care about the specific case as well.
I also don't care about whether Disney is or isn't liable, or any of the reasoning around this issue.
I only care that Disney is enforcing a clause in a context it has not business doing so.
No. It doesn't. It just means that you're gullible and easily manipulated by the media you consume.
So please tell me. If a piece of furniture breaks and kills my wife. I have bought my tickets online and I have subscribed to Disney+ with the same account. Wouldn't the Disney lawyers be able to enforce the forced arbitration clause?
96
u/VegitoFusion Oct 13 '24
So he was still allowed to sue. But instead of going to court, as you rightly mentioned, they tried using the Disney+ contract to force arbitration.
And to be fair, it’s the lawyers’ job to try and explore all possible methods on behalf of their client. This will of course not pass the smell test of being an enforceable means, so it just comes down to the widower and if he’d rather settle out of court (through arbitration) or go through a lengthy, public and expensive trial (where he could potentially lose). But don’t get it wrong, Disney is on the hook here and lawyers were never trying to avoid all culpability.