3 ms·

I'm just so baffled by this entire situation. The man's wife had an allergy which the restaurant workers allegedly reassured they can accommodate for, and then

by a2128 2y ago

I'm just so baffled by this entire situation. The man's wife had an allergy which the restaurant workers allegedly reassured they can accommodate for, and then they managed to include enough allergens that her epipen did nothing. In response to this, Disney lawyers are arguing the man has no right to a wrongful death suit partly because he signed up for a Disney+ trial on his PlayStation 5 years ago (which included an arbitration clause) Whatever amount the man is asking for surely can't come close to the reputational harm this situation is causing Disney. Disney's argument also shows being a pirate is the legally safer option here because you never have to accept any arbitration clause!

maeil 2y ago
While of course this being a possibly valid legal argument is completely inane, I must assume Disney is doing this for precedent, not for this one case. They want to be able to use this absurd line of reasoning in any future lawsuit and are afraid they will lose the ability to do so. I could be wrong, not a legal scholar.
foobarchu 2y ago
As far as I can tell, the main target in the case is the restaurant. Disney feels they shouldn't be a part of the case because the restaurants are independently owned/run, which is arguable. AFAICT they're pulling this to avoid a legal precedent being set regarding them being liable for any of this. I just can't see any way a judge goes "yeah this years old free trial agreement also applies here". That's like if I worked in the IT dept at a hospital with an arbitration agreement, then years later after I moved to a different job I was unable to sue a different hospital owned by the same private equity group for malpractice because of that agreement.
- jjk166 2y ago
  > I just can't see any way a judge goes "yeah this years old free trial agreement also applies here". That's like if I worked in the IT dept at a hospital with an arbitration agreement, then years later after I moved to a different job I was unable to sue a different hospital owned by the same private equity group for malpractice because of that agreement. Don't give 'em any ideas
simpletimes 2y ago
What's baffling about it? Has Disney ever done something to indicate that they would behave in any other way? If this is your first time encountering the ruthlessness of American megacorporations, then I am truly sorry, but this is what we've incentivized. Lawsuits like this from organizations with more money than God happen every single day, and, more often than not, these companies get away with it. Truly, this is not at all new behavior from companies like Disney, and it will keep happening as long as we continue to foster a country where this behavior is rewarded and celebrated.

by a2128 2y ago

maeil 2y ago

While of course this being a possibly valid legal argument is completely inane, I must assume Disney is doing this for precedent, not for this one case. They want to be able to use this absurd line of reasoning in any future lawsuit and are afraid they will lose the ability to do so. I could be wrong, not a legal scholar.

foobarchu 2y ago

As far as I can tell, the main target in the case is the restaurant. Disney feels they shouldn't be a part of the case because the restaurants are independently owned/run, which is arguable. AFAICT they're pulling this to avoid a legal precedent being set regarding them being liable for any of this. I just can't see any way a judge goes "yeah this years old free trial agreement also applies here". That's like if I worked in the IT dept at a hospital with an arbitration agreement, then years later after I moved to a different job I was unable to sue a different hospital owned by the same private equity group for malpractice because of that agreement.

jjk166 2y ago
> I just can't see any way a judge goes "yeah this years old free trial agreement also applies here". That's like if I worked in the IT dept at a hospital with an arbitration agreement, then years later after I moved to a different job I was unable to sue a different hospital owned by the same private equity group for malpractice because of that agreement. Don't give 'em any ideas

simpletimes 2y ago

What's baffling about it? Has Disney ever done something to indicate that they would behave in any other way? If this is your first time encountering the ruthlessness of American megacorporations, then I am truly sorry, but this is what we've incentivized. Lawsuits like this from organizations with more money than God happen every single day, and, more often than not, these companies get away with it. Truly, this is not at all new behavior from companies like Disney, and it will keep happening as long as we continue to foster a country where this behavior is rewarded and celebrated.