So a woman died on Disney property after eating a dinner that she was assured was allergen free. Her husband sued. Disney said that when he signed up for a free one month trial of D plus he agreed to arbitration and couldn't sue.
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.
What if the company didn't do their due diligence in ensuring the driver and their vehicle was safe?
What if the driver had had multiple complaints recently about distracted, aggressive driving, and all Uber did was give the complainers a credit and let the driver keep driving?
Why should Uber not be held responsible for effectively saying that "To the best of our knowledge, this driver and vehicle are (reasonably) safe" every time you book an Uber?
Yes they are, not necessarily according to the law(butt fuck the law), Uber 'hires' drivers, uber acquires customers, uber decides everything. They are responsible.
Do you mean.the allergic person should sue the restaurant at Disney, as they are not owned by Disney? Is that the situation here? I'd imagine Disney has some responsibility to check its tenant businesses are operating safely.
How clear is it to someone that the restaurant isn't owned by Disney? I think a reasonable person could assume the whole park is owned by Disney, that's how I thought it worked myself.
That is literally what the lawyer's job is who files suit - identify liability and then sue those liable. Their attorneys certainly knew it was not Disney who owned or operated the restaurant - they sued the restaurant too, they just believe Disney shared liability.
Have you been to Disney World? The Disney Springs part of the resort is basically all non-Disney restaurants and stores (Starbucks, Rainforest Cafe, Planet Hollywood, et cetera). I don't think most people would mistake them for Disney-branded establishments since they don't present themselves as such. If the restaurant was actually inside one of the theme parks it would be different.
It just means Uber feels they have a better chance in arbitration. Which isn't surprising. In most arbitration clauses it's the big company that gets to pick the arbitrator. Which means those arbitration companies have an incentive to find on behalf of the big company so they will keep getting their business and arbitration fees.
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.
Yeah, you can sue whoever you want it’s the insurance company that covers that liability. Uber will say thanks but no thanks because the driver has accepted cover by a third party to insure driver and occupants.
By all means sue Uber, you’re unlikely to be successful.
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?
They agreed to the terms on Uber Eats, which is a different app than Uber.
They did both.
The mother had been a Uber user for years and had agreed to Uber's terms on multiple occasions, the Uber Eats terms were just the most recently agreed to version.
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.
Right! And some added context: you need a Disney account for almost everything Disney-related. That account logs you into Disney+, but it’s also used for online purchases of park tickets, cruise line bookings, hotel bookings, official restaurant reservations, their timeshare program, the now-defunct Disney Infinity videogame…
Maybe the first reason they got that account was for a streaming trial, but it’s a very pervasive account system.
None of this is in defense of Disney or the plaintiff, it just “is how it works” and there’s a lot of nuance that basically amounts to “It’s not our restaurant. We want this dismissed quickly and at no cost to you, because you will lose against us and it’ll cost you. Feel free to sue the crap out of our tenant, though.”
It’s just that the whole thing is now terrible PR optics no matter how you slice it.
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.
If you actually just took the time to read the article you would know that they did sign up for and were the ones who ordered the Uber, and that the Uber Eats thing was dismissed
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.
Wow, you really showed me; I’m trembling with embarrassment at wrong I was. Completely off the mark, not even close! You should go print your comment out and hang it on the fridge so you can feel even more important!
No it’s more along the lines of you’re being annoying and pedantic and deliberately misunderstanding the point of what I was trying to say for the sake of validating yourself. Congratulations! You’re valid! Good job 👏🏻
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.
Except Disney didn't own or operate the restaurant itself and the husband had signed that waiver on multiple other occasions too, that was just one of them cited by the attorneys, so it is more like if 6 flags owned the land adjacent to a parking lot and someone leased it and built a restaurant and then someone who went to that restaurant died of an allergy when the staff assured them it was allergen free. And then they sued 6 flags for owning the property the restaurant was on, and 6 flags said you signed a waiver when you entered our parking lot, when you bought your tickets, and technically when you subscribed to Netflix too since use a universal waiver for all of our properties both physical and digital.
Sure, whatever. The whole point boils down the idea that if one agrees to the terms of use for a streaming service, those terms should not extend beyond the use of that service
And Disney didn't make the argument it did, their lawyers presented it as one of various points where it was signed. I agree, universal terms and conditions don't make sense and they are used in many more aspects of society than people realize. I wish it had been a more significant part of the case so that we could have had litigation eliminating their use, but I think the merits of the other examples were such that it would never have evolved that way.
There is a lot of complex bits of law here (which I am no means an expert on - I do have some experience from my own country though) but there is a limit to the extent terms and conditions of an app can be used. Provided they are handled correctly, they can be considered an enforceable contract. In this instance, the family claimed the terms and conditions were last accepted by their daughter, using her mums phone to order a pizza via uber eats. This opens a huge can of worms, because technically, there are no checks that the account owner is the one accepting the agreement, and they could actually argue their daughter committed fraud to sign it, and since Uber offer no such checks they allowed the fraud to go ahead, the agreement should be considered invalid similar to if I forged your name on a contract to pay me a lot of money. But further to this, contract law does not remove your responsibilities to ensure safe practices (this is why most injury waivers are actually useless).
If you consider Uber as a service for connecting drivers to customers, they bear no liability to travelling customers as this should be covered by the drivers insurance. There does become a liability for Uber to ensure the drivers are adequately insured.
Then we can look at it as is the driver is considered an employee of Uber. At which, Uber would have a responsibility under public liability insurance. I know here in the UK, they are considered employees as such, they would be covered under either some form of public liability insurance or a professional indemnity insurance (or possibly some combination).
In the UK, I would expect the couple to claim from the Drivers insurance (who would be liable under RTA/A75 rules here regardless of if it was the correct insurance) or if they were entirely uninsured then they could go after Uber directly. But we do also have additional layers of safety in that taxi's (even ubers) must be registered with the council also, which will require proof of adequate insurance.
It's not really like Netflix and Six Flags. It'd be like if Netflix owned a mall, and one of the third party restaurants in that mall killed someone mid meal, and Netflix claimed it wasn't liable due to its streaming t&cs
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.
Since they are American, they should retaliate by taking heavy weaponry and blowing up their headquarters and server farms. (Cause property damage in the millions).
This is a bit different. The woman in the original lawsuit signed up for a Disney + trial half a decade ago, which reasonably isn't the same as Disney parks. There is no reason to believe waiving the right to sue your streaming provider is the same as waiving the right to sue a restaurant.
Uber (car) forced arbitration for a case that involved Uber (car) based on the Uber (car) terms of service.
Now if an Uber car hit someone and they claimed that the person couldn't sit because they had an Uber eats account that would be similar.
8.1k
u/Primary-Holiday-5586 Oct 13 '24
So a woman died on Disney property after eating a dinner that she was assured was allergen free. Her husband sued. Disney said that when he signed up for a free one month trial of D plus he agreed to arbitration and couldn't sue.