There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

pHr34kY ,

So, Disney+ gift cards carry no value at Disneyland, but the Disney+ death waiver does?

Zorque ,

Wait, it’s not even a Disney owned property within the parks? It’s a separately owned pub in Disney Springs?

That makes a hell of a lot more sense… Disney cast members are fanatical about following dietary guidelines.

j4yt33 ,

Another piece of evidence that Disney is straight up evil

Good_morning ,

Ah, so this is the beginning of the end of Disney, I wonder if it will slowly burn out or if it’ll be cut into pieces and picked clean.

roofuskit ,

So we’re just straight up making up headlines now? The reality is atrocious enough without just lying about what’s happening.

g0nz0li0 ,
@g0nz0li0@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, that headline is atrocious. The reality of the situation is sensational enough, I’d argue dialling up the outrage actually diminishes the impact.

PiJiNWiNg ,

So frustrating seeing this shit. I simply dont understand how this type of language is allowed to be present in T&Cs.

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

And people dont like it when louis rossman calls this EULA rufying

ChaoticNeutralCzech ,

It’s spelled https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/roofie#Verb

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Thanks, I was trying to figure out what the hell “rufying” was supposed to be…

muntedcrocodile ,
@muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee avatar

Guess u must be an expert in the field

chakan2 ,
@chakan2@lemmy.world avatar

That’s some pretty hardcore click bait.

They’re arguing her estate has to go to arbitration. They’re not arguing they are absolved of guilt.

It’s pretty ugly already, but the title is sensational bullshit.

Ibuthyr ,

I have no clue what the title is trying to tell me and I’m not clicking the link to find out, because fuck clickbait.

Aatube ,

The original article title wasn't clickbait. OP is.

Ibuthyr ,

Ah, thanks! I thought it was bad etiquette to link an article and change its title.

I might check the article to see what shenanigans your weird legal system is up to again.

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

They want it to go to arbitration where A. Their dirty laundry will not be aired publicly, they can enforce complete privacy and gag the defense forever, and
B. Where the arbitration that the company hand-picks will almost guarantee to conveniently rule in favor of the company with a binding, non-appealable ruling?

Fuck all of that, it does not make it better. Dinsey is trying to operate outside the law like every other corporation so desperately wants to.

ChaoticNeutralCzech ,

Arbitrators are very likely to lose their business if they rule against their more frequent client (which is the company of course).

PunchingWood ,

This is the most ridiculous American thing I’ve read in a long time.

They really went above and beyond to look for any “legal” excuse to get away with it. Whoever suggested to even use this as a defense can’t possibly be a human being. What an absolutely disgusting low-point for such a company…

ChaoticNeutralCzech ,

I hope some politician finally steps in and nullifies all forced arbitration clauses, in past and future contracts. There is no legitimate reason for them to be allowed from the customer’s standpoint (and most voters are primarily customers).

dust_accelerator ,

Sooo …

If you only ever pirated their content, you have better legal standing?

I think I don’t get how that’s the message they want to send out to the world…

nondescripthandle ,

FTC, theres a company here that got so big it thinks its internet video app terms absolve it’s completely seperate theme park from being sued. If that’s not too big to exist then nothing is.

Teknikal ,
@Teknikal@eviltoast.org avatar

Wow. I bet their just trying to drag the case out until the guy can’t afford it. If something like this was successful none of us stand a chance against any company legally anymore.

AlligatorBlizzard ,

That’s what Disney does, although it’s less about draining the victims financially (there’s lawyers who will take the case without getting paid up front), Disney’s tactics here are about draining the victims emotionally. I was friends with the monorail pilot who was killed about 15 years ago, Disney dragged out the case and ultimately got his mom to take a settlement.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

I’ll be cancelling my Disney bundle subscription after this. I seriously hope they get billions from Disney after this. Nothing I hate more than companies trying to abuse arbitration clauses. No one in their right mind would think Disney+ subscription would impact their legal rights at a park. Now I know why Disney+/Hulu/etc moved to a MyDisney account. It was because of shenanigans like this where they wanted to try to make a contract that applies to every Disney property imaginable.

Shdwdrgn ,

You might want to re-read that… This is saying they signed up for a 1-month free trial in 2019. It sounds like they haven’t even had a subscription for the last 5 years but the lawyers are still trying to argue that it applies.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Yes I know this. They include terms that automatically adapts all new agreements too. Even if 5 years ago they didn’t have as broad of a contract, businesses constantly update their terms to strengthen and expand stripping away consumer rights.

werefreeatlast ,

Sorry. You already entered into the contract. You signed. Anyway, I’m not here for the arbitration. I’m here for you puppy Max. In the contract, in fine letters, it clearly says that if you do happen to acquire a puppy via gift, birth or otherwise monetary exchange, Disney has the right to use said animal for the new Lion King the ride movie. So anyway, can we please take a look at the specimen? We got some invasive tests we’d like to run now.

danekrae ,

Reminds me of the HUMANCENTiPAD

youtu.be/Gxb3YOZrPP0?feature=shared&t=34

admin ,
@admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

Can you take your unopinionated headlines somewhere else? This is a technology community.

AmidFuror ,

I think you mean opinionated headlines. But you're right. This post is trash. Disney did a bad thing, but it's nothing like what's in the post title (which isn't the article headline).

Disney is arguing the case should go to arbitration, not that it is legal for them to kill someone. Obviously their argument in arbitration would be that is isn't their fault the death occured.

admin ,
@admin@lemmy.my-box.dev avatar

I might have been a teensie bit sarcastic when I wrote that ;)

AbouBenAdhem , (edited )

It does suggest that tech users should reconsider their assumptions about the scope of the arbitration clauses in the user agreements they sign.

299792458ms ,

lol wut?

XeroxCool ,

Not legal to kill her, but absolve themselves of a food-related death from a Disney property because the language in the disney+ terms say “all dispute swith the company shall be arbitrated”

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •