• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t know which of these two situations happened

    1. Someone incredibly and insanely out of touch was watching The Boys and thought Vought was a guideline for how a good business operates

    2. Someone on a power trip wanted to try to legalize murder for his brand

    I’m not sure which scenario scares me more, the incompetence or the evil.

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m guessing the legal department had been looking for a test case to see how far they could take the forced arbitration clause in the Disney+ ToS, but they didn’t consult the PR department as to whether this would be a good idea.

      • mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Some junior unpaid intern was tasked with reading all their agreements to see if there was anything they could use. They pitched this and the rest was history

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Neither happened. The restaurant isn’t owned by Disney, it is just listed on their website as a recommended place for allergy free dining, and they while own the property, it isn’t a part of the actual park, springs, etc. The family signed up for D+, and therefore “read” the terms, including the arbitration, and then used their D+ account to sign up for the trip, and had to “read” the terms again. The whole D+ argument wasn’t that they had to go to arbitration because they used the streaming, it was to show they had to go through the same terms multiple times and should be familiar with them. And basically, this is an issue with the labeling on the website, so would be covered by those rules. Who they really should be going after is the restaurant, if they made the same allergy free claims there. Agreements requiring arbitration are indeed bullshit and should be more limited, but this is proper enforcement of a shitty system, not the batshit insane enforcement it has been memed into.

      • ZMonster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They are going after the restaurant. The restaurant is whom they are suing. But they know they won’t get much from an allergy lawsuit settlement with an Irish Pub themed restaurant, so they included the deeper-pocket Disney in the suit (which IMO is a less than honorable act, but in a capitalist society I’m always going to give the benefit of the doubt to the person, also you never know if the legal system is going to choose you to fuck with so I dually recognize the spaghetti-at-the-wall approach to damage remuneration).

        Even with that said though, since the guy who decided to risk a life-threatening condition on whether a likely not much more than minimum wage employee could or would know if a thing was allergen free decided to rely on a technicality of civil litigation to get more money, then I can’t fault Disney for using a technicality to try to get out of it.

        Fuck Disney in general, but kudos to Disney for taking this on the chin just to not make someone even a perceived victim of their greed. I think it’s honestly respectable. They’re still probably not going to be at fault were it to go to trial, but they’re going to settle and give this guy the obvious payday he wanted.

        Good breakdown by LE