Disney tried to force the case into arbitration by citing the agreement on the widower’s Disney Plus trial account.

Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial.

“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” chairman of Disney experiences Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    174
    ·
    4 months ago

    “We got caught by the public, and we want to keep this excuse possible in the future. So we’re dropping it from now so the court doesn’t set a legal precedent that will fuck us over.”

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I fucking hate Disney.

    With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach

    Yeah if they possessed sensitivity they would’ve never tried this. The only reason they changed their mind is public backlash which would’ve been obvious to foresee.

    So they’re myopic and insensitive. Also just cruel. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if they could’ve gotten away with this. It’s straight evil to try it.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      4 months ago

      They said they decided to waive their right to arbitration. They still think that’s their right, fucking sickening.

    • winterayars@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’d say actually the only reason they backed down is because they realized they were going to lose and didn’t want to risk their arbitration clause getting struck down in a court.

      • KingBoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        This was exactly it.

        They’ll wait for a case they can win for sure and let court precedent destroy their customers following.

        If the reversed happened, it would be a massive win for consumers. The mouse can’t allow that.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      That made me so angry!

      When this story first came up, an Ars Technica commenter explained that the only thing to do in this scenario is to grieve with the widow, and that it was a ludicrous fight to have. It’s pretty bad for Disney to pretend like they agree with that viewpoint after already putting the widow through more distress.

  • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    4 months ago

    we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration

    That’s legalese for “We still think that we have that right, we will use it again”.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “Just when we have less heat on us and the news doesn’t have everyone so riled up and hating us.”

    • Bojimbo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think they realized that this is the kind of case that could affect arbitration laws if pushed up in appellate courts.

    • Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They could settle out of cout for an amount that they could earn back in under a week. Now they wanna go to court where they’ll end up paying more. Get fucked Disney

  • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m just confused how anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Surely the strong public backlash could have been easily anticipated.

      • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Most of the time it’s not as egregious as trying to use a free trial for streaming to force arbitration for wrongful death at an amusement park. I truly can’t imagine any world where this doesn’t blow up because it’s so outrageous.

        • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The world where the government is for the corporations not the people. We’re getting very nearly there, with legal bribery and corporations being considered “people”.

          Sure the people might be outraged, but legally outage doesn’t matter and the corporations have a huge power advantage over a single person.

          • half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            While I generally agree with you, this case is literally an example of how the public’s outrage DOES matter and potentially changed the course of this case, regardless of the legality.

            • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes, for now. Their response says a lot as well. “We’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration”

              To me, this is them not wanting the arbitration clause itself looked at, and struck down.

              So they back off and let this one pass, until they have enough power to not care about the outrage. (And in all the future cases the clause still applies and they continue to fuck over whomever they will)

  • Krzd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    “unique circumstances” we got caught and too many people heard about it

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I don’t advocate the high seas.

    But man, a TOS like this makes me glad I didn’t watch Andor via Disney+. I certainly don’t feel bad about it now.

    And to the Disney legalbot, I watched it via a friend, of course.

  • JaggedRobotPubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    A disney SWAT team kicked down my door and scream-asked me at gunpoint if I’d seen the Mandalorian.

    I hear it’s been happening a lot.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wonder how these stupid attempts ever get pass these supposedly smart executives. You have to be pretty stupid to hold someone to a agreement that was over four years before. The idea that you are bound by a contract for a online service after you cancel it is absurd and downright stupid.

  • OfficerBribe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Insane that there was no one from Disney side who did not try to stop this in the first place. Don’t mind the empathy, nobody saw this as a bad move for their image? Unless they were being sued for 100+ M I don’t see how this made sense financially for them.

    And this terrible dry response from them, insane.