cross-posted from: https://reddthat.com/post/23849795

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.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    8427 days ago

    FTA:

    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.

    I’m pretty freaking sure that even if the dispute was hypothetically with Disney+ streaming, rather than a theme park/restaraunt… it’s still not enforceable.

    But This? only reason it’s not patently ridiculous is because this is how Disney wins lawsuits: they’ll bring hundreds of bullshit motions to drown the plaintiff in legal fees until they simply go away.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        426 days ago

        It’s completely insane, they could have settled for breadcrumbs, but they’ve chosen to make the most comic villain insane ad against subscribing possible. Pay for our content, nvm this line that says we can kill your wife with impunity 10 years down the line… GIVE US MONEY

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1727 days ago

      They could have easily settled this.

      I’m hoping now they and other scumbag companies get taken to task for how fucking ridiculous their bullshit catch all clauses are.

    • Carighan Maconar
      link
      English
      227 days ago

      Yeah exactly, unless the US judical system is even more fucked up than I believe already, this makes no sense. Nevermind how enforced-arbitration doesn’t work in most of the world, the agreement would be with Disney+ the streaming arm, not Disney park operations.