I know Disney is as cliché as an evil megacorp gets, but I’m going to need a source for this before I start believing in just any absurd sounding tale.
The guy only asked for $50K after they killed his wife. They’re trying all this batshit crazy nonsense to get out of paying $50,000.
That is a painfully low amount for killing someone, even to a layman. I could pay that if I had to, just not all at once.
To aggressively put it into perspective compared to Disney’s other costs of doing business, Disney is estimated to spend on average $95K per day on fireworks. Totaling $35M per year, up in smoke. Couldn’t be bothered to shell out $50K for killing somebody, though. ¯(°_o)/¯ Their morals, priorities seem to be a little off.
They’re trying all this batshit crazy nonsense to get out of paying $50,000.
The idea being that if they pay 50k to this guy, it might get someone else to want 500k… or 5 million… or more. Alternately, “We got the lawyers, may as well use them.”
Yeah, avoiding precedent is pretty important for big corporations. Not only might someone else sue for more, but I think a successful lawsuit can make future suits easier to win and might open them up to other damages.
I think their idea is more that an arbitration is private while a trial is public. The trial might also set precedent for future cases, while the arbitration wouldn’t.
Now of course, the fact that this story made it in the press completely defeats the first part of the point.
Please. You are correct but you need to be informed and eloquent about it. Google “enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices,” according to the most recent judge to rule against them (it was a 270 page ruling so I can’t blame you for not reading it).
Intellectual property rights do not a monopoly make. Unfair practices (like requiring webpages to conform to a new standard like google amp or not get boosted in search) make the monopoly.
The restaurant is not owned by Disney, but it is on Disney property at Disney Springs, Orlando. I would imagine that they are going after a much bigger sum from the restaurant itself
Meanwhile, even though D+ wants to apply their TOS to the theme parks, if you buy a D+ gift card, those funds cannot be used at any of the theme parks lol.
Gen-X here. Millenials felt like our younger siblings. Gen-Z feel like our kids and our pride and joy. Gen-Alpha so far feels like that bad acid trip we had back in '91 about Garbage Pail Kids.
I feel like you might be out of the loop here. I want to help. “Chat, [statement or rhetorical question]” has become a meme slang, like millennials calling dogs anything but dogs (pupper, good boi, heckin floof, etc). It comes from Twitch, AFAICT, where streamers use this unironically (and ironically) to interact with their chat.
I’m not, it’s twitch streamer lingo, I know. Asking this how OP did, in a post, like people posting here are OP’s parasocial fans, is just immensely disrespectful. Why not just ask “Is this real?”
I’m not sure which came first, but in my friend group we often will use similar terminology in our group chats. “Hello chat, I just…” “Good morning chat, should I be concerned about…”
My name starts with Chat (real name too, but pronounced with Sh instead of a ch) and Chat/Chati are my nicknames. I know how Karens feel when memes use their names…
So Karens need to stop fucking whining, it ain’t that bad and some of us have been hearing people equate our name to shit since middle school and just chuckle.
I had a real Don Glover moment too where I had heard people replace the Chat with shit but didn’t realize telling the people hiring me they could just call me Shat would sound weird.
Boss later told me how weird it was explaing to the team that Shat would be joining the team soon.
Right to Sue is a right. Arbitration clause is a contractual obligations.
They should be able to sue regardless of being contractually obliged to seek arbitration. Disney can sue them for violating the terms of the contract later, but nothing should hinder anyone’s right to seek justice.
That’s what I don’t get about this. The point is either to get out of paying or at least make it very difficult. At the same time the cost to Disney as a company with all the bad press and fall out from doing this would be orders of magnitude greater than simply paying the widower compensation. Who signed off on it? The idea that a lawyer can do what ever it takes to win a case while simultaneously destroying the company they work for seems dumb as shit from a purely financial point of view.
For many parents, it’s quicker to pay $10 for Disney+ than to load up a torrenting site and download the torrents every time. As a former piece of shit bratty toddler, I can understand why many parents would rather pay.
You’re correct. Imitating this sort of speech even outside of Twitch is essentially the meme. The joke is that streamers get so inebriated with talking to the chat that even when no chat exists in real-life they still reflectively reference it. This meme started on TikTok but it has spread into general Gen Z pop culture.
Disney might want to push it all the way to the Supreme Court, where corporate friendly judges would be all too happy to allow giant corporations to force everyone the interact with into forced arbitration.
Arbitration clauses in consumer contracts should be either illegal or opt-in (not opt-out). Arbitration is only fair when two sides mutually agree to it, not when a megacorp hides it in the 45th paragraph of their terms and conditions while judges continue to entertain the absurd fiction that it’s reasonable to expect consumers to have actually read, understood, and agreed to it.
Piracy, watching through a friend, BluRays & DVDs, hard copies & actually owning something as opposed to…perpetually renting access, owning nothing & being happy about it.