"As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
Notice they still claim arbitration is their right, that the streaming agreement is still valid, but would rather appease the masses to mitigate bad publicity.
The right case where there isn’t popular support for the plaintiff.
Bonus points if the case has more of a grey area such as the plaintiff agreed to the TOS while doing something similar with another business unit and closer in time to when the incident occurs.
I.E they sign the TOS for a Disney cruise and the incident happens a week later at the park.
Notice they still claim arbitration is their right, that the streaming agreement is still valid, but would rather appease the masses to mitigate bad publicity.
They also don’t want to test the legality of forced arbitration on something like this, where precedent against it might be set.
Especially when the judge will have seen the outrage and likely be influenced by it.
I think you’re very right.
That was my first thought… They initiated it for the precedent, they must have had reason to believe they wouldn’t get the ruling they wanted.
If not this, then what are they waiting for to actually use this?
The right case where there isn’t popular support for the plaintiff.
Bonus points if the case has more of a grey area such as the plaintiff agreed to the TOS while doing something similar with another business unit and closer in time to when the incident occurs.
I.E they sign the TOS for a Disney cruise and the incident happens a week later at the park.
Courts should keep a tally record of bogus defences and charges that a plaintiff or defendant brings for each client…