Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’ve definitely crunched the numbers and figured out this method is cheaper than a settlement, and in a country like the US, they’ll definitely get away with it.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        No numbers…they would easily spend 4x as much to defend their arbitration bullshit then actually pay out the guys demands.

        It’s a dick waving contest and Disney wants the world to see their dick. Nothing more.

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Don’t they have notifications in their restaurants warning people about allergens? Also, it is cheaper to pay the guy the $50k he wants so long as he signs a doc that says Disney is not at fault. This is so strange (and terrible).

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The claim is that the victim repeatedly informed the waiter about her allergy needs and checked more than once whether her order could be prepared safely in accordance with her needs, the waiter repeatedly told her it was prepared accordingly, and it was not.

      Restaurants are absolutely capable of allergen free food prep and telling customers which foods cannot be safely prepared. Disney is absolutely at fault.

      • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Fine, but it is just weird they didn’t have a notification in their restaurant regarding allergens and aren’t just paying him the requested settlement - like this is the strangest, most expensive path they could have taken.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          A notice isn’t relevant. It doesn’t remove their liability.

          And he absolutely definitely shouldn’t take a settlement that requires absolving them of wrongdoing.