This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.
You press ‘Agree’, you lost the right to sue the company.
Forced arbitration is unjust and should be outlawed. It’s only legal in 7 other countries: UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, China and India.
That’s right: 4 countries that are essentially US lapdogs, two 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.
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.
However, lots of companies still add these bullshit clauses as a way to bully people out of seeing a lawyer.
For sure and, even then, in uk law, you can’t sign away your freedom 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.
Is it really called a “repugnant clause?”
Lol yeah, what these sorts of things would be dismissed as is literally called a “repugnant clause.”
It should be illegal for companies with a legal budget over X€ to have illegal clauses on their terms and conditions.
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:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
This is why we occasionally get courts referring to Ancient precedents from England.
lapdogs
The Whitehouse is 12 years overdue for its 200-year reno. Are you angling to get it done for free?
Edit: guess some folk are still pissed about the war of 1812… Either that or they really hate The Arrogant Worms…
The US has twice as many parties as China. If that ain’t a major difference then I don’t what is /s
Caught yer /s and adding to it a variation of the quote that usually goes here:
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.
-Noam Chomsky
That was true through the Obama administration.
I don’t know what is going on now.
There’s the Left Butt Cheek Party and the Right Butt Check Party, both from the same ass hence why you get the same shit from both.
Off topic, but since this is Lemmy, I choose to interpret your political assessment as,
- 4 US lapdogs: UK, Saudi Arabia, China and India
- 2 dictatorships: Canada and Australia
- fast becoming a dictatorship: Ireland.
If you look at the list all those countries were influenced or under control by the British Empire.
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.
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.
AntiCorpoTerrorism… Cyberpunk much…
You best start believing in
ghost storiescyberpunk dystopias. You’re in one! - cyborg Captain BarbossaYes. This is what I always tell people: “We don’t get StarTrek, we get Blade Runner”
You and I have probably been telling people that for quite some time now, by now it should start to become plainly obvious to anyone who looks.
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?
Because Disney didn’t own the restaurant, it was a private restaurant renting a building in a shopping center owned by Disney
Disney was just the landlord in this situation, and so they honestly had nothing to do with it
The reason why literally any motion to dismiss would have likely been successful on the merits is because the only way, literally the one and only way the plaintiff was able to include disney in the lawsuit is because disney owns the land that was leased to the completely separate and not-affiliated-in-any-way-to-disney Irish Pub restaurant. The plaintiff argued that because there were pictures of disney owned lands for lease on their site and some of those pictures showed current lessees, ie some included the Irish Pub restaurant, he argued that they were also liable.
But if the connection to Disney was so remote and tenuous, why include them at all? Simple. Why sue a poorly managed restaurant that will likely collapse under the fairest fiduciary breeze leaving very little remuneration for you, when Disney’s pockets are vastly deeper? Now, again, fuck disney forever, so I could care less that someone tried to take a bite out of disney in an unscrupulous way. But if you’re going to do some shady shit to a corporation known for shady shit doings in an economy that encourages the most shady shit under a system that cultivates new ways of doing shit more shadily, then you have to expect them to fight less than fair.
I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, so I’ll assume that the deceased had no idea what was happening and instead speak ill of the living - in this case, her complete, utter, totally useless fucking husband. A moron of the highest degree who took his anaphalactically compromised partner with a known and fatal sensitivity to nuts… TO AN IRISH FUCKING PUB RESTAURANT!!! After the restaurant had demonstrated multiple times that things were not in order, they continued to dine. Assuming that these things (none of these as of a week ago at least have been denied by the plaintiff) are true, I honestly think the guy should be investigated for manslaughter.
So, you can understand why seeing people cry alligator tears over the poor innocent village idiot whose incompetence has now cost someone their life is pretty fucking sad to see. I mean, the constant and incessant misplaced vitriol toward Disney while they prepare to settle with a guy they owe nothing to is kind of making disney out to be the good guy - and that is the true travesty IMO.
Disney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can’t operate without following Disney’s rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.
Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.
Show me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.
I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying “prove me wrong”.
Why don’t you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I’m not entertaining it.
Thanks for taking the time to write that up!
That all makes sense - though unless there’s info in missing, I’d argue the woman should have been responsible for managing her own allergies rather than her husband, but that’s beside the point, and I understand your position on speaking ill of the dead.
Whatever the case, it does certainly seem like the truth was steamrolled by a good story - though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Thanks again.
I don’t disagree, but I believe there was a communication barrier for her. I could be wrong and don’t remember right now, but I believe she did not know English.
though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Possibly. Disney withdrew their motion after the PR hit them, and are likely negotiating a settlement. But other cases may change the way arbitration agreements and contract law are handled.
ALSO
I just walzed past your appreciation and I should have acknowledged it. I am neurodivergent and can be abrasive and I try to be relatable but sometimes miss the mark.
And I work in an extremely remote location with thousands of employees and they are nearly all conservatives, which is fine. But the most insincere of them still thinks “Alex Jones was right” about some things. Everyone is a trumper. So there is a degree of rejection of reality and uninformed conjecture in everyone that I know. So being honest, truthful, and humble are so important to me. I hear all day every day about The LEFT™ . So I think it behooves people that conservatives would call leftist to make sure they are not spreading their own version of misinformation.
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.
If you go to your friend’s house for dinner and they end up giving you E Coli, do you sue their landlord? Because that is the situation you are glossing over by saying:
even interpreted in the best possible light
This is very reductive of the situation according to the plaintiff himself; which means you are either insincere or incapable. Either case leaves me entirely disinterested.
How is a private gift/shared activity subject to the same rules like a corporation selling you an item for profit?
I don’t have health inspectors in my kitchen. I better hope restaurants have them regularly enough to enforce hygiene standards.
Disney also does not have health inspectors in another company’s kitchen, because they don’t own that fucking kitchen. Bro, you are arguing with a keyboard warrior on Lemmy. Your total lack of understanding is clearly established by both the raft of legal professionals who have already demonstrated the reality as well as THE PLAINTIFFS FUCKING FILING. So by all means, reach out to the plaintiff and explain to him and his lawyer how much more you know about it. 🙄
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 alternative 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…
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.
All the more reason why they can’t be used as valid and binding contracts in a court of law!
“This comment is way too long.”
presses Agree
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.
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.
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.)
Not if those terms weren’t in the original ToS agreement.
Just fyi, über has one app. Covers both ride booking and food ordering.
Not on my phone
Perhaps a regional thing? Mine is one app.
My guess was either regional or OS; I’m in Canada, running Android
Well, I won’t be using Uber any more. Right alongside anything produced by Disney.
Fuck both of them.
Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her 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.
He was also merely acting as an agent for her estate, not suing them personally, and she hadn’t agreed to any arbitration
Removed by mod
Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant,
Then they should have argued that instead of “you can’t sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago.”
-
Moving to arbitration where the party making the agreement picks the arbiter, is close to being dismissed because there is about a 10% chance of winning.
-
The restaurant is in Disney Springs. Correct that its not Disney but they still have a stake in the restaurant.
Your misinformation is just as bad.
Removed by mod
Wow, no reason for name calling. I was just calling out how you were doing a similar injustice to the truth. But okay, I am a cunt for disagreeing with your assessment.
I’m not arguing that Disney should be held liable just that your generalization was wrong. If you are going to argue points of view on the internet and revert to name calling all I have to say is go to bed you child.
In other news, like the article that spurred this thread corporations using ToS to scapegoat things is wrong.
-
So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?
Removed by mod
There is no way the disney brand would allow complete control over a sub contractor. Disney has final say in anything inside those gates.
More like Disney has final say in anything inside these gates that appear to be guarded by Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.
Removed by mod
What bullshit? Disney, has an image to protect and they absolutely exert control over their sub contractor vendors.
The amount of brain worm from this whole thing is amazing to me. This is on the level of trumper shit at this point. Seeing so many people incapable of acknowledging that they misunderstood something is just crazy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know you’re a good person for being patient with so many boobs.
I’m not saying Disney should be held liable, but the fact remains that the defense they initially went with was “You used an unrelated service for a week several years ago so you can’t sue us” instead of something credible and relevant.
No, the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with. And the “unrelated service” that they used (on actually several occasions according to Disney’s motion) contained a boilerplate arbitration agreements that literally every corporation under the sun uses. Shady as shit? Absolutely. Both parties are being shady as shit. The lawsuit only included Disney because there was never going to be a big payday without them. Nothing about the plaintiff or Disney is either credible or relevant.
the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with
Then Disney should have argued that instead of something shady as shit.
Did Disney do something recently?
They tried the exact same thing not too long ago.
Oh yeah, I forgot about injustice in the sea of injustice that has been the last few years.
Well. what are supposed to do?
Stop voting for a$$holes? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Boycott Disney. Pretty easy to do.
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.
Hey sorry I’m dumb I can’t work out if there is a way to msg you or another mod direct. So here you can only post new articles right? I was just wondering if you knew of any other spaces or whatever they’re called. Another place like this but where you can just post about a topic to start a discussion?
Cheeeeeers in advance
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 when government failed to keep these sociopaths in line’
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.
