The lawsuit claims that Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant despite repeatedly informing the waiter of her severe allergy.
"Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior.
The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company."
Some lawyers truly are scum.
Removed by mod
So would this mean that Disney can no longer use their massive legal department to crush fair use of their IP? If someone signs up for Disney+, the arbitration agreement goes both ways.
I would think a competent judge would just ask the Disney lawyer that question. Like, “do you want to be out of a job?”
No.
You and Disney agree to arbitrate all your claims. Disney still retains the right to fuck you over to the full extent of the legal system.
After all, corporations are people, and some people are more people than other people.
That’s the best paraphrase of Animal Farm I’ve heard in a while.
Removed by mod
But this is happening in post-precedent America
Maybe we can finally claw these arbitration powers back?
Wait this isn’t a joke?
Very much nottheonion material. Something like
”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Shellfish Poisonings”
Fucking hell
“Signing up for a free trial of Disney+ means they can kill you, legally.”
”Disney Legal Team Argues that Agreeing to the Terms & Conditions of Their Streaming Platform Releases The Company of Any and All Potential Liability in Political Assassination”
If a lawyer is scum, then so is the one paying them.
“I don’t care how you handle it, just handle it.”
Some people/companies/etc. really take “you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take” too far.
I do hope whoever suggested that this is a legitimate cause to dismiss the case dies of an intestinal blockage caused by hemorrhoids. Just a thing I hope.
Arguing over health/death via a technicality is one of the lowest of lows.
This shouldn’t even be a technicality here. If this goes through and a TOS is universally binding to your life then the court system just died. Also they can put other ridiculous things in there like you owe them the subscription money in perpetuity even if you decide to uninstall the app. They’ll argue the consideration is there because you can re-install at any time.
Just get your bullets inscribed with “by receiving this bullet you have agreed to our tos, by which all liability is to be decided by the shooter’s dog, who does not like you.” Then murder is legal.
this is actual parody dystopian movie level crazy wtf
All corporate lawyers are scum.
Wow.
Don’t blame lawyers, blame the lawmakers. Heck, people and/or civil society is responsible for petitioning to lawmakers for stronger protections. Absurd amounts of money/lobbying has perverted the process, which is why a lot of these entities need to be taxed of out their power to have lobbying money.
Arbitration clauses need to be deemed illegal.
Especially ones that are mandatory for employment
or at the absolute bare fucking minimum be opt-in only, instead of “opt out by sending us a handwritten letter through snail mail within 45 minutes of this notice.” the shit offers less than zero benefit to the consumer and basically lets corporations get away with murder
nothing will ever change to make them go away
Opt in with customers isn’t a thing. If you don’t opt in, you don’t get housing, or Internet, or phone service. The list goes on. Opt in is libertarian propaganda. No different than at will employment.
Yeah, I was gonna say basically the same thing, ‘opt in’ is just a solid point of leverage away from ‘required.’
Should be illegal.
Arbitration has its place in B2B contracts.
With consumers or employees? Absolutely not
If nothing else, they should always be mutual. Have Disney take their copyright claims to arbitration rather than using the other legal channels available to them.
I’m just about to move to Quebec, which is based on the French Napoleonic code rather than English Common Law. I’m not an expert, but I understand that the French system does not rely on precedent in making judicial decisions, but everything has to be codified in the law.
Anyway, another one of the legal differences between Quebec and other provinces in Canada is that mandatory arbitration clauses are illegal.
The medical system may be imploding even faster than the rest of Canada, and my rights as an English speaker may be stripped from me by the time I move, but they do have some protections for individuals.
Merde, j’ai besoin d’aller au Montreal!
(I know that’s not quite right, but I’m proud of it anyway 'cause I didn’t use machine translation.)
Yes agreed. It should be illegal to compel someone to give up their fucking rights (to their detriment and to the benefit of the person making them agree especially, especially when the person benefitting is an authority figure). This includes police encouraging the people they arrest to talk without a lawyer.
Removed by mod
Pllllllllllleeeeeeaaassseeeee let this go to trial. I’m begging y’all. They weren’t even active subscribers of Disney+, they only got the trial. But holy fuck either way, this is stupid. Arbitration agreements should be illegal.
ugh, how revolting. for a while there, while they were fighting desantis, i forgot how evil disney can be.
Evil begets evil, Mr. president. (Extra points if you can name the movie)
for a gen-xer like me, that’s easy.
leeloo dallas multipass
ZZZZ!!!
AZIZ! LIGHT!
I am a meat popsicle
It’s the one where they are in the future, and have aliens, and a bunch of greedy people. It has a hero in it, that makes a stand for what is right, killing a bunch of aliens.
Battlefield Earth, right?
(/s, please don’t kill me, Corbin)
Bzzzz!
BZZZZZZZZT!!!
Everyone who approved and delivered this argument should go to prison.
Event happened at raglan road Irish pub, when raglan road staff failed to do their job in regards to food allergens.
Diner dies from anaphylaxis due to ingested dairy and nuts, which they were ASSURED BY THE WAITER WAS NOT IN ANY OF THEIR FOOD.
Disney is calling for the lawsuit to be dismissed because her husband signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service years prior. The company says signing up for the trial requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company
That’s insane. When are citizens going to be protected from fucking mandated forced arbitration???
Never because when corporations do it it’s “capitalism” and “freedom”.
Didn’t you know,? Protecting citizens is “communism” and therefore “un-American”.
Haven’t courts ruled that those terms and conditions aren’t totally enforceable since no one can really read and/or understand them all?
This is a food issue and literally has nothing to do with any fucking digital agreement whatsoever. Full stop.
I think in this case, it wouldn’t count because of the “of course the terms of service only applies to the service, dipshit” and maybe “hey how about you grow a pair of eyes and notice her husband is not the Lady herself”
Edit: and maybe just a taste of “how about you go fuck yourself.”
The estate should file the claim. They wronged her, not the husband. By having the estate file suit, that would negate anything the husband may have done.
And sue the chef personally, for completeness
Not wrong. Actually, if they don’t, that’s the easy way to dismissal for Disney. “Can’t be that bad if the chef and waitress weren’t sued”
Holy cow. Just pay the man Disney. Then kindly fuck off
Seriously. Those greedy fucks have the money
It would be a lot more beneficial to them to add an arbitration clause to all their movies. Watching the next avengers movie? You give up the rights to your first born.
deleted by creator
How is this not a criminal matter
It could be a difficult thing to prove who is at fault, and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the staff at the restaurant were at fault individually.
Honestly, my brain went straight to, “Someone along that chain is one of those people who think allergy sufferers are just weak complainy people and faking it”
Yeah this is unfortunately a very common line of thinking. Restaurant workers get tired of people claiming allergies just because they don’t like something. And over time, they get lax with food safety practices, or even outright ignore them because they think the person is just faking it.
Even worse, some people will intentionally “test” allergies to see if the person is faking. Because they genuinely don’t believe the person, and want to prove they’re lying.
My buddy is deathly allergic to peanuts, and has had several reactions after explicitly clarifying with the server that there were no nuts in the food. And he actually ended up breaking up with a girl because her mom tested his allergy. She added peanut powder to some brownies she baked, then told him they were nut-free. He found out that his ex knew about it, (and didn’t warn him), which is what led to the breakup.
Like alec?
I’ve seen this Black Mirror.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
It wasn’t the extra links. It’s the bias in the bias detector.
I’m not saying that one should be confined to home eating only what they personally curate. I am saying that this broad made it through medical school, did a residency, dealt with a healthy cross section of society at is dumbest. Who literally puts their life in the hands of a waiter, who has to them communicate to a cook, if there was one. Some doctors graduate with D’s.
broad
I thought this was 2024, not 1924.
I’ve told them a thousand times… never call chicks “broads”.
First thing that came to mind for me, too!
What the fuck is wrong with you? What was she supposed to do?
I’m not saying that one should be confined to home eating only what they personally curate, but I’m saying that one should be confined to home eating only what they personally curate. Also I’m sexist af.
Nice, man.
What does any of this have to do with the fact that Disney wants the case dismissed because they had a Disney+ trial account years ago?
Every article about this is so garbage. I’ve read like 10 different ones and I have no idea what she ate at all. One article said she had a nut and dairy allergy but I’m not even sure that’s correct. I need to know what she ordered how Disney lists it on the menu and what the waiter was supposed to do with the dish. If her allergy is bad enough that she died it would need to be a really heavy dose of allergen which I assume she would be able to see?
What does any of that have to do with Disney wanting the case dismissed because they had a trial Disney+ account years ago?
No one is asking you to decide who the guilty party is here. The point is how absurd this attempt to get the case dismissed is.
It’s in this article: “The couple asked the waiter several more times to be absolutely sure the food would be allergen free before Tangsuan ordered a fritter, scallops and onion rings, the lawsuit said.”
Just not true. If the allergy is severe enough even a very small dose is enough.
That’s the nitty gritty of the lawsuit, but these articles are all about how Disney is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out completely not about the lawsuit itself.
