return to table of content

Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms

tgsovlerkhgsel
84 replies
12h30m

The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion/claim, Disney can only win.

In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs.

Courts should be able to issue sanctions/extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from "you killed this person negligently" to "you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband", and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.

thih9
75 replies
11h27m

In general I agree, except perhaps "Disney can only win.". They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.

Their service is hospitality and the message they're sending here is very much inhospitable. It might turn into a meme, like "Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL". It might make people hesitate and/or choose a different holiday destination. Etc.

shiroiushi
50 replies
11h24m

They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.

When has that ever happened? I can't think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.

Rinzler89
23 replies
8h54m

>When has that ever happened? I can't think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.

Exactly. VW shortened the lifespan of millions of Europeans with their Diesel gate and their finances are still solid. Ikea and Oil companies destroy the environment all the time and saw no financial hit from the PR issues. Nike, Apple and other major manufacturers are known to have used sweatshop labor and also saw no financial consequences.

Consumers just don't seem to care enough about the PR of $COMPANY as long as their contempt with how the $PRODUCT they bought works and serves them well.

alt227
20 replies
6h52m

VW shortened the lifespan of millions of Europeans

Thats a bit of an over the top way of saying it!

sjsdaiuasgdia
16 replies
6h12m

We could stand to do a bit more raising of the profile of the externalities of such events.

The emissions regulations that VW was cheating to get around exist for the purpose of improving air quality. The improved air quality leads to less air quality induced health problems. Which in turn leads to longer, higher quality lives for people in Europe.

VW wasn't going around and directly pouring vials of poison into people's food like some kind of cartoon villain. But they absolutely were intentionally lying about the emissions of their vehicles, and those emissions absolutely have impacts to human health.

alt227
15 replies
6h5m

Its fair to say that VW intentially pushed the emissions of their vehicles over the recomended limit, which potentially affects the health of millions of people.

Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole.

sjsdaiuasgdia
8 replies
5h54m

It's simply extending the line to the obvious next dot. It gets more uncomfortable to think about so we often don't want to, but what exactly do you think is the eventual outcome of those effects on the health of millions of people?

Think of the many factors that combine to determine when someone dies of "old age" or "natural causes". Think of the extra effort millions of bodies have spent dealing with the pollutants directly and the effects those pollutants have on those bodies.

Someone in VW's position could say, "well our pollutants were one cause among many" for any specific death. But they were part of the math. They contributed a share and lied about the size of it. They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions of Europeans.

alt227
7 replies
1h9m

Before the phrase was 'VW shortened the lifespan of millions'.

Now after my posts you have changed that to 'They did indeed contribute to shortening the lifespan of millions'

They are in no way the same sentences. Your second one agrees with my point, your first one doesnt.

Yes, they contributed, definitely. Did they directly cause a shortening of peoples lives, no they didnt.

sjsdaiuasgdia
6 replies
1h3m

LMAO what? Those sentences are pretty equivalent.

Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people. Tell each of them to cut a bit of the string off. Each person in the group has now participated in the shortening of the string. You can, completely accurately and honestly, say both of these sentences:

"Person 1 shortened the length of the string."

"Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string."

These statements are not in any way in conflict. You're creating a meaningless difference then insisting that I index on that difference. I refuse to play that game.

alt227
5 replies
55m

OK, lets take it apart then.

I refuse to play that game

You seem to be playing it pretty well from where Im standing!

insisting that I index on that difference

Looking back on my post, I havent insisted anything. I didnt even ask you anything. I just clarified my point.

It was your choice to retort.

Take a piece of string and send it around a group of people.

Why do you insist on trying to reduce my opinion, which you do not understand, into metaphors which have no relevance?

"Person 1 shortened the length of the string."

This statement implies a direct influence, ie Person 1 cut or broke the string, therefore directly shortened it.

"Person 1 contributed to shortening the length of the string."

This statement is much more vague. What part did person 1 contribute? Did they make the scissors which cut the string? Did they mine the metal for thoise scissors? Did they hypnotise or manipulate the will of the person who did actually cut the string?

There is nuance here, and you dont seem to be understanding it at all.

Dylan16807
2 replies
49m

Which part are you saying wasn't direct? The VW->emissions step, or the emissions->life shortening step?

I could understand arguing the first one, but I think the subterfuge makes it pretty much a direct action of VW.

I don't think there's a reasonable argument that the emissions didn't directly shorten lives, even if you think the precise number is impossible to calculate.

From your post above it sounds like you're arguing the emissions->life shortening step, and you haven't really given a good explanation why.

alt227
1 replies
22m

Its neither, I am questioning 'WV->Life Shortening' which some people seem to be insisting has happened. When you miss out the middle step, it becomes a different beast.

Dylan16807
0 replies
20m

So you agree that VW directly caused the emissions, and the emissions directly caused the life shortening, you just think the combination shouldn't use the word "direct"?

Then I think you're in a pointless semantic argument rather than making a distinction about the real world.

sjsdaiuasgdia
1 replies
35m

That's your own interpretation. Neither phrasing specifies the exact amount of contribution the subject had on the target. One phrasing is slightly more active in acknowledging that other contributions could exist, but still does not declare that other contributions must exist. The other phrasing does not preclude the potential of other things that also caused shortening.

It's all in your head, dude.

alt227
0 replies
16m

That's your own interpretation.

No its not. The dictionary definition of 'contribute' is 'help to cause or bring about'. Emphasis on the 'help'.

but still does not declare that other contributions must exist

By definiton of the word 'contribute', yes it does.

One phrasing is slightly more active in acknowledging that other contributions could exist

No it isnt, by using the word 'contribute' you move the repsonsibility from directly being caused by that person, to being shared by multiple entites, each with different amounts of cause/blame. See the definition of 'contribute' above.

Dude

LMAO

Why am I arguing language nuance with somebody who talks like this?!

Rinzler89
3 replies
6h2m

>Saying VW directly shortened the lifespan of millions is just Hyperbole.

Why? What's the difference when the outcome is the same? Your malicious actions still lead to deaths.

"I didn't directly murder someone, I just didn't clean the radioactive residue form his house because that would have cost me time and money so now he's dead."

alt227
2 replies
1h11m

Its not the same though is it. In your example there can be a cause of death identified as radiation poising which can be attributed to the residue in his house.

With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life, and so claiming that there is a direct correlation is Hyperbole.

Dylan16807
1 replies
1h5m

With the VW example, you cant quantify it at all. How much has it shortened peoples lives? 2 seconds? 10 years? nanoseconds? Its not a direct correlation, theres no graph you can plot with emissions against length of life

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/NOx%20Health%20Fact%...

According to new research published in Nature, NOX from diesel vehicle exhaust was linked to 107,600 premature deaths worldwide in 2015. Of these, ~38,000 are attributable to excess NOX emissions.

Sounds like the graphs do exist. (Obviously VW is only a fraction of those specific numbers.)

alt227
0 replies
10m

I really tried to give it a go, and accept what this link is trying to say.

But when you read it, literally everything used in creating those numbers is an estimation. Ther are no measurements whatsoever.

snapcaster
1 replies
5h54m

What point are you trying to make here? people pick the weirdest battles

alt227
0 replies
1h14m

Then why comment? Im just shooting the breeze with random opinions on a public forum. Isnt that what we are all doing?

benterix
1 replies
5h53m

We can argue about the extent of this contribution, and whether it was negligible, but not about if it actually happened.

(Unfortunately emissions are not the only culprit and a lot of particulate matter that has negative impact on overall population health in cities comes from brakes and tires but nobody figured a feasible way to deal with that yet.)

alt227
0 replies
1h7m

Fully agreed. Finally a sensible reply.

Rinzler89
0 replies
6h5m

>Thats a bit of an over the top way of saying it!

Why? Excess of fine particulate matter in the air we breathe, like the one coming from diesel soot, does reduce life expectancy.

vundercind
0 replies
2h30m

1) You can’t keep up with all of it.

2) There are substantial costs to avoiding all the brands known to be doing bad things, both in time and money, even if you could keep up with it.

3) Ok, so you’ve decided the cost to you and your family is worth it: congrats, your efforts harm you more than all these companies unless a whole bunch of other people do the same thing, and keep doing it (i.e. it’s a coordination problem)

There are reasons boycotts and such are all but entirely ineffective as a means of keeping megacorps in line, and it’s not really “consumers’” fault things are how they are. It’s structural.

cogman10
0 replies
7h51m

Nestle regularly uses slave and child labor.

I don't pin this 100% on customers, because many people aren't informed and worse, it's often not just these single companies, it's all their major competitors doing exactly the same thing.

The issue is a lack of regulation and enforcement. We can't trust major companies to be good actors because capitalism does not reward honest actors. This is one purposes of government, to make the cost of being a bad actor high enough that companies behave.

alt227
12 replies
7h45m

Isnt Tesla taking a pretty big hit every time his lordship tweets something?

gkbrk
11 replies
5h38m

No? You're confusing short-term stock price fluctuations vs brand value and future sales.

Almost no one is picking a non-Tesla car because of the CEOs unrelated tweets.

datadrivenangel
9 replies
5h27m

The musk factor is starting to hurt them. I have friends who have told me they'd like a tesla but won't buy one because of Musk. I don't think they can name the CEO or senior leadership of another car brand.

eric_cc
7 replies
4h57m

That speaks volumes about your friends.

scblock
4 replies
3h2m

Yes it says they are probably good people.

eric_cc
3 replies
1h31m

All we know is this: They virtue signal that they want a product but don’t buy it because they’ve been conditioned to dislike the company’s CEO. It’s likely that their tribe has all been conditioned in this way so the virtue signaling would be well received and elicit social approval.

I don’t think that makes them good or bad people, per se. I’m not here to lay down a judgement. It is what it is.

Larrikin
0 replies
29m

According to you, when are they allowed to want an electric vehicle but not want a Tesla? Do they have to buy a Tesla no matter how much they dislike the thought of giving their money to someone they dislike?

Freedom2
0 replies
9m

I’m not here to lay down a judgement.

It's disingenuous to lay down a judgement, then follow up with this. It is what it is.

Dylan16807
0 replies
57m

Almost everyone does that level of virtue signalling, so it really says very little about their friends.

schmidtleonard
0 replies
2h56m

Yep, they're normal.

Larrikin
0 replies
3h24m

That he doesn't hold stock in Tesla or other Musk companies and doesn't want to be associated with Musk because of his opinions?

Silhouette
0 replies
4h49m

I do expect my next car to be electric but I have no interest in a Tesla. My distrust of Musk and the culture he appears to create at companies he runs is a big factor in that view.

triceratops
0 replies
2h55m

Almost no one is picking a non-Tesla car because of the CEOs unrelated tweets.

I did

alt227
4 replies
8h5m

Crowdstrike lost 50% of their business valuation in a week due to bad PR recently.

hangsi
3 replies
7h27m

Arguably Crowdstrike's loss was due to a flaw in their product rather than PR.

Disney's product (though not their core, I would argue) allegedly killed this poor woman - however it is the lawyers' behaviour, not the death itself, that is an additional PR liability for Disney; death from an allergy is tragic, but could have potentially happened at any restaurant in the country. Only Disney (and a select few other large corps) could pull this particular bad act in defence.

As an aside, the entire line of argument from Disney is an absurd legal fiction. No reasonable person reads terms and conditions, and so they should not be bound by the terms. I hold a weak hope that this case is bad PR for the practice as a whole that raises the profile of this injustice.

alt227
2 replies
6h56m

Disneys product did not kill this woman.

Disney own the mall, where a resturant chain rented a unit from them. The mall is free to enter and does not require buying a ticket from Disney. The 3rd party resturant hired the staff, made the menu, cooked the food and served the guests. Nothing to do with Disney at all.

The only part disney has in it is they published the restuarants menu on the malls website, which reads 'Allergen Free'.

This is the basis for the entire lawsuit.

benterix
1 replies
5h50m

The only part disney has in it is they published the restuarants menu on the malls website, which reads 'Allergen Free'.

And this should be their line of defense, not "but you clicked on a trial of a streaming service 5 years ago".

alt227
0 replies
1h5m

The general consensus is that to point out how absurd the claim is, you need to make an equally absurd counterclaim.

roshin
3 replies
10h4m

Bud light is a famous recent example. Of course, the company is large enough that it didn't make the company bankrupt, but it hurt them

collingreen
2 replies
3h9m

It hurts my heart that all the examples above of companies hurting people or lying have very few consequences but bud light took a brand hit because they paid a trans person.

kortilla
1 replies
2h33m

Not because they paid a trans person, but because they made them part of the marketing. A product mostly marketed to the very demographic that is transphobic. It’s not at all surprising this backfired.

Companies only started putting gay couples in commercials regularly years after gay marriage was legalized nationally.

didiop
0 replies
2h5m

Did you see Mulvaney's portrayal of "girlhood" though? Incredibly, ridiculously sexist. Let's not forget that the backlash against him has been for a variety of reasons, and one of them is his blatant misogyny.

noisy_boy
1 replies
10h14m

I can't think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials

It just have to affect enough to offset the cost of the lawsuit (which probably won't be much because they probably do have plenty of in-house lawyers) + the estimated cost of future lawsuits that might come their way if they appear to be "soft" and/or set precedence.

Silhouette
0 replies
4h44m

They just made the front page of the BBC News website. I think we can safely assume that a lot of people are going to hear about this one.

How many future lawsuits about allegedly killing someone by failing to properly take into account their medical conditions after repeated warnings are Disney going to face? If the answer is greater than zero then it seems they have bigger problems than whether they can move this particular legal action to arbitration.

Singletoned
0 replies
10h34m

Ratners is the famous example that springs to mind here in the UK.

7thaccount
0 replies
6h2m

I think the Bud light controversy did impact their sales significantly for a good while.

yreg
6 replies
11h3m

The widower asked for 50k, this negative PR is already worse for DIS than paying out the 50k.

Both sides can lose.

bugtodiffer
2 replies
11h0m

How is it losing to invest 100K to fight off a 50K lawsuit?

If they would lose easily, they'd get more lawsuits. They have to scare others off.

yreg
0 replies
9h15m

You mean if they killed your wife you wouldn't sue now, because you remember that you have tried out Disney+ once?

I don't think this scares anyone of suing Disney. If anything, it scares people away from visiting Disney restaurants and subscribing to Disney products.

LadyCailin
0 replies
10h17m

If they keep killing people, I should hope they get more lawsuits!

dudeinjapan
1 replies
8h55m

But just think: if they pay this 50K, then the spouse of every person Disney kills is going to start asking for 50K.

mcherm
0 replies
8h15m

Wow... I guess that would be a great deal of money.

jawns
0 replies
6h24m

That $50K figure wasn't mentioned in the article above. Where did you see it?

I'm surprised that the figure would be so low, both because wrongful death claims are usually 6- or 7-figure amounts, and also because she was a NYC doctor with much higher future earnings potential than the average person.

Edit: I see in a previous article on wdwnt.com that "Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 under the Florida Wrongful Death Act." That doesn't mean, though, that he's seeking only $50K. I believe it means that he only needs to disclose at this point that the damages he's seeking are at least $50K, but could be much higher.

mcherm
5 replies
8h17m

Yes, except this person DID cancel her Disney+. More accurately, she never signed up for it, merely ran a free trial for a month in 2019. So the only possible way to avoid this, if Disney's argument was upheld, would be to have never interacted with Disney at all in any way.

gambiting
2 replies
7h22m

>. More accurately, she never signed up for it, merely ran a free trial for a month in 2019

It's actually not even that. The person who died had the free trial, and now Disney is being sued by her husband - and her husband has never had a Disney+ trial or any other service with such an agreement with them. So like the article says - Disney is trying to anforce an agreement that this person(the husband ) has never signed.

jawns
1 replies
6h28m

Your point is correct, but you've got it backward.

It was the husband who signed up for the free trial and bought tickets to Epcot.

Yet he is suing not on his own behalf, but on behalf of her estate, and she never entered into any such agreement.

You can think of it this way: Disney wronged the woman who died. She is the one who is owed damages. But since she's dead, her estate is owed damages. Her husband is the administrator of her estate, and he is suing on its behalf. So whatever agreements he has entered into in his individual capacity are irrelevant. It would be like trying to force arbitration on someone because their lawyer had a Disney+ subscription. That doesn't mean that they themselves entered into an agreement with Disney.

gambiting
0 replies
5h49m

Ah. Totally got it wrong then, thanks for explaining :-)

brookst
0 replies
2h45m

would be to have never interacted with Disney at all in any way

Yes, that is the PR risk. How much will Disney save in this one case, against the background meme of "if you ever watch anything Disney they are free to kill you" (that's not accurate, but memes rarely are).

IMO this is lawyers finding a local maximum that is bad for the company in general.

7thaccount
0 replies
6h5m

"Never interacting with Disney to begin with" is now a goal of mine.

I occasionally watch something on Disney+ with the kids, but it's been awhile and Netflix has been a much better value. This kind of bullying makes me even more likely to cancel.

As far as their parks go, I have been extremely disappointed in the past. Six Flags may be a gross dumpster, but it's at least got a bunch of cool rides and is much cheaper. I was blown away by the mediocrity and datedness of Disney World. It's hot and humid there with no shade in the park. Who wants to sit in the sun for an hour to wait for a ride that's okay at best. I may take my kid once just so they can have that experience, but I'll probably take them someplace much better for 1/4 the cost instead.

I get it that some people really enjoy the parks and movies though and that's fine (to each their own).

bugtodiffer
3 replies
11h1m

I would think Disney is too big. Not even 0.1% of all Disney fans will ever know.

Temporary_31337
2 replies
10h54m

A good portion of HN already knows. Disney+ is struggling as it is. Giving people one more reason not to sign up is not good marketing. Losing 0.1% market share in case of Disney is probably worth more than the whole lawsuit.

mcphage
1 replies
5h54m

Disney+ is struggling as it is.

Didn’t they just start turning a profit, a year ahead of schedule?

0cf8612b2e1e
0 replies
3h8m

Is this financial outlook posted anywhere digestible (ie not investor reports). I find it wild that it is not profitable.

Video streaming is not cheap, but at their scale, they can negotiate the best peering deals or setup edge boxes a la Netflix or YouTube. Then again, maybe it is their core audience which has a different usage pattern from adults. I might watch one show a night. A child might stream for 12 hours a day.

Unless Disney went on a spending spree and bought a big number of new movies+shows to publish on the platform, I am surprised. Disney bought Hulu- they could piggy back off of all that existing infrastructure.

Sarkie
2 replies
11h23m

It was a 1 month trial.

Not even using it.

"Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console."

wang_li
1 replies
4h59m

Contracts require an exchange of value. If I got a free trial I would argue they got nothing and so there is no agreement.

mauvehaus
0 replies
2h40m

On the contrary, it seems extremely valuable to Disney to be able to force all disputes into individual binding arbitration rather than having to go through the courts.

On the third hand, it's debatable if anything on Disney+ is of any value either, so it could be argued that the deceased didn't get any value and isn't bound by the agreement.

(Yes, yes, I know that's not what you mean, nor is it what "value" means in a legal sense. IANAL, obviously)

kozinc
1 replies
11h16m

Ah no, their argument is because she signed up for a one-month free trial of Disney+ in 2019, she agreed to arbitration for her death in 2023. So by their metric it doesn't matter if you cancel, you're still bound to that if you visit Disney IRL.

darth_avocado
0 replies
2h50m

She didn’t even sign up. It was the husband who signed up.

moss2
0 replies
9h37m

Hoping that journalists pick up on cases like these and spread the word wide enough is... optimistic, to say the least.

A much better solution is to build incentives into the legal system, like tgsovlerkhgsel suggested. The problem isn't that bad actors abuse the system, the problem is that the system allows bad actors to abuse it.

benterix
0 replies
5h57m

"Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL".

And if you haven't, don't subscribe to this service as it can be used against you.

piker
1 replies
10h38m

This post dramatically underestimates the tenacity of the US plaintiff's bar. Doubly so as of late given the rise of litigation funding.

whaleofatw2022
0 replies
6h58m

Tbh I would love if they spun the motion into upping the damages in a nuclear verdict.

make3
0 replies
11h35m

I would assume that lawyer companies might want to take this on without charging the person just because the potential upside of winning the lawsuit or settling it is so big. I agree with the general case that the legal system is really not accessible to everyone though ofc

jimt1234
0 replies
1h52m

I've got a hunch that the "bug in the legal system" is forced arbitration. I have zero actual experience here, but my general feeling is that arbitration rarely works out to the benefit of the plaintiff. Or, put another way, arbitration always benefits large corporations, like Disney. Is there any truth to that?

edwinjm
0 replies
5h3m

Disney can only win

If an agreement is not consistent with the law, the law wins en the agreement is (partially or as a whole) void.

cs702
0 replies
6h8m

> The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion/claim, Disney can...

For large corporations and rich individuals that are in the wrong, this isn't a bug of the US legal system. It's a feature.

Dragging the legal process through the courts for as long as possible -- typically, years -- is part of the standard playbook.

As you point out, the goal is to wear down -- and maybe exhaust the financial resources of -- the other party.

TheIronBird
0 replies
3h30m

idk, to me it seems like no matter what this is a lose/lose situation for disney.

either way it's bad press, which granted doesn't mean much in the long run

assuming the motion to dismiss is denied and it moves forward, regardless of which way it is eventually ruled, doesn't this eventually open it up for federal courts to rule all forced arbitration agreements in T&C's void? (or more likely assuming they rule against disney, limit them to less severe crimes)

though that the widow is willing/able to move forward with appeals process, the latter of which likely won't be possible without some civil rights activists group stepping in to provide pro bono legal assistance

a settlement seems unlikely, since the widow only went forward with this case because Disney refused a 50k settlement, the cheap bastards. They are almost certainly spending more on lawyer fees than it would have cost them to settle this out of court

JumpCrisscross
0 replies
7h34m

bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion/claim, Disney can only win

Judges are humans. Pissing them off from the outset isn’t costless.

sircastor
40 replies
13h33m

It wasn’t too long ago I began to understand that lawyers are just hackers, but instead of computers they hack the law. For some, hacking the law is a game - to the point where they can lose sight of the humanity intrinsic in law and simply try to penetrate through the vulnerabilities while seeking a “win”.

smt88
31 replies
13h13m

This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.

dylan604
16 replies
13h6m

The current SCOTUS would disagree strongly as they are using ridiculous loopholes from the bench

refulgentis
12 replies
12h55m

This is the 2nd HN legal discussion I'm facepalming at in 24 hours. I can't help wondering if the flippant way HN generally discusses law would hold if there was a legal site that tried opining on software engineering. It seems to me an irrational approach that doesn't hold for other subjects[1], and is just unconsidered.

[1] save the de rigeur "what if physicists are assuming something big that isn't true? [as I understand it from a Brian Greene book] " deca-thread on any physics article

Dylan16807
3 replies
12h44m

Are you gonna say what's wrong or just make a big deal out of being disappointed?

Or, if you really just mean flippant with no other implications, then software discussion here gets equally flippant all the time.

refulgentis
2 replies
12h27m

It's not even wrong, in the Wolfgang Pauli sense of the phrase.

The equivalent in our thought experiment of this lawyer site would be someone patiently explaining that there's unit testing and integration testing and fuzzing, and a lawyer replying "Maybe in theory, but in practice software engineers don't invest in testing and when they do it isn't useful, for instance, see the recent issue with Crowdstrike. That would have easily been caught by all the testing you mention, and Crowdstrike does do testing."

dataflow
1 replies
12h1m

The "equivalent" you mention is more like the opposite rather than the equivalent. It's making a sweeping generalization about millions of software engineers using 1 counterexample pertaining to one specific company, completely ignoring the impact the millions of other people have had through that practice. Extrapolating from a highly-non-random team of (say) ~100 engineers to a population of 4+ million is just a baseless thing to do.

SCOTUS is the exact opposite of this. It has a whopping 9 members, all of whom directly influence every single decision -- which is published publicly. There is no other member of the population to extrapolate to (vs. the millions in the SWE case); you just have to extrapolate temporally... for which you have plenty of history to base things on. Making sweeping generalizations about how the majority of them operate is as close to the exact opposite of baseless as it could possibly be.

Maybe you're right regardless and the parent is "not even wrong" nonetheless; I'm not opining on that conclusion one way or the other. I'm just saying your attempt at an analogy arguing for that is very much not making a case for it.

refulgentis
0 replies
11h35m

Nothing from me will be good enough for you on this topic, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I can't meet your expectations, I recognize that it is on me, not you.

n.b. for reader so it's clear I'm being earnest in my exit, not passive-aggressive: Yesterday, we disagreed on whether "parallel construction happens" obviously shows that it is meaningless the 5th circuit said geofencing warrants violate principle of presumed privacy. This was important because given parallel construction happens, I cannot say that it is unlikely that the tech companies, judges, DA, and cops will collude to continue serving geofencing warrants, responding to them, and using them for evidence, hide it from the court and defendant, and use parallel construction to nail them.

dylan604
2 replies
12h42m

While it might not be loopholes per se, but to disagree that current bench has grabbed the wheel and jerked hard is undeniable and you loose credibility yourself. I'm sorry you think semi-emotional pissed off commenting from someone that is very much IANAL, but it doesn't mean the actual subject isn't wrong. Just looking at it from an ethics viewpoint, they've made a mockery of everything they're supposed to stand for. But of course you'll just try to claim your comments are so much more well thought out and we can all try a little harder to be you.

refulgentis
0 replies
12h21m

You are appealing to emotion and reciting a political argument to make a professional ethics claim. I think SCOTUS isnt going great too. Doesn't have anything to do with how likely it is a motion like this survives or the legal principle being discussed.

moomin
0 replies
11h35m

Honestly the current court is more of a Ritchie “trusting trust” scenario.

dataflow
1 replies
12h26m

This is the 2nd HN legal discussion I'm facepalming at in 24 hours. I can't help wondering if the flippant way HN generally discusses law would hold if there was a legal site that tried opining on software engineering. It seems to me an irrational approach that doesn't hold for other subjects[1], and is just unconsidered.

Hey there. I very much am not fond of citing the site guidelines normally; I understand people get worked up about stuff they feel is completely off-base. But given that I was one of the participants in the previous discussion that apparently made you similarly facepalm yesterday, and that I was similarly left clueless as to what flaws you saw in the actual merits of the arguments you were expressing your disdain at, I would suggest taking at least this one guideline to heart:

"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

If you feel people are misinformed on some topic, please try to enlighten them with thoughtful explanations, instead of just expressing scorn and facepalming. It's not that people can't handle the scorn; it's just that it's unhelpful and unconstructive -- it certainly won't help anyone who is Wrong On The Internet become more correct.

refulgentis
0 replies
11h29m

Facepalming isn't sneering -- in that loose of a definition, the above post itself is sneering.

You are misrepresenting the thread: you made a reply demanding I enumerate any legal professionals who had their careers ruined due to parallel reconstruction, in response to me answering someone's question about why the 5th circuit decision yesterday mattered in practice.

You also didn't attempt to follow-up at all, you weren't doing earnest inquiry, there wasn't a crowd of people. Just you, bringing up an unrelated topic to police me answering someone's question, via agreeing with them that it can still happen mechanically, but it won't in practice, because police / warrant judge / tech company / DA chain is diffuse enough that they can't effectively collude to hide from the trial judge they used a geofencing warrant.

You've replied here a few times, as I note in my reply to one of the others: Nothing from me will be good enough for you on this topic, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I can't meet your expectations, I recognize that it is on me, not you. You read my posts as dishonest personal attacks, and its due to my cocksure verbiage coupled to my inability to definitively rule out the possibilities you raise.

tsimionescu
0 replies
12h51m

True, SCOTUS hasn't been using ridiculous loopholes in a few decisions recently. What legal professionals are saying is that they have simply ignored the explicit text and spirit of several laws or the constitution in a few recent decisions, particularly their presidential immunity case.

raverbashing
0 replies
12h50m

It's the other way

Discussions about software are (and in most cases) what works best here. But anything else the quality of discussion goes down a lot

The funny exception is that sometimes you see a very insightful and relevant comment about a niche subject in a tangential discussion

bee_rider
0 replies
12h26m

If a bunch of lawyers wanted to complain about the general usability of software and how it impacts their lives, or complained about the fact that the engineers seem to be maliciously breaking previous conventions, that’d make sense. Sure, they don’t know much about file systems, but they would rightly be annoyed if we suddenly decided to break precedent and take the floppy-disk icon to mean “I’ve backed up the file to a floppy disk so it is ok to delete the local copy and close the program.”

eadmund
2 replies
5h44m

‘Loophole’ is another way of saying, ‘the law as written.’ The job of judges is to apply the law as written, not the law as they wish it would be.

I think that in general the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions have been misinterpreted in the media, and far less ridiculous than, say, Wickard v. Fillburn or Reynolds v. Simms.

jimt1234
0 replies
2h33m

The job of judges is to apply the law as dictated by their billionaire, gift-giving "friends".

Made a few changes to reflect the current state of SCOTUS. :)

dylan604
0 replies
4h23m

The job of judges is to apply the law as written

well, thank goodness we've never had an activist court so that the phrase activist court had never been used before. What a wonderful world it must be that you think we live, unfortunately for me, that's not the world we live in. The very fact that each and everyone of those judges manipulate the Senate swearing that precedence is important and their impartiality prevents them from prejuding any hypothetical case being posed in their questioning are just words.

csallen
6 replies
12h38m

I think you're essentially proving the op's point.

In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers

ozim
5 replies
12h30m

I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away.

But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.

Closi
3 replies
11h53m

One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.

happymellon
2 replies
11h3m

A denial of service?

codetrotter
1 replies
8h19m

Denial of justice :(

LgWoodenBadger
0 replies
5h14m

In the US, if you don’t have money, legal recourse is essentially unavailable to you. Sometimes even if you do have money, finding a lawyer who specializes in your need is often impossible.

Imagine if you had to pay, as a victim, for the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators. And find a lawyer who handled “just simple battery” and not only murders.

My spouse and I are dealing with this now. It’s awful not being able to get justice.

csallen
0 replies
12h19m

Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.

tgsovlerkhgsel
5 replies
12h27m

The judge can and likely will strike this down, but the damage has been done by that point (delay the procedure and wear the very human opponent down) and I doubt there will be meaningful consequences or compensation for trying.

knallfrosch
4 replies
10h36m

I believe this is a US case, so the free citizens of this wonderful democratic country can just vote better lawmakers into their parliament at the next election.

BobaFloutist
1 replies
2h25m

At least the lawmakers in both of our legislative bodies are democratically elected, unlike the UK which somehow still has hereditary positions in their government in the year 2024.

cafard
0 replies
1h10m

I thought that only life peers got to vote. Not so?

truckerbill
0 replies
10h22m

Ironic

lupusreal
0 replies
10h14m

Most of our lawmakers are lawyers, for who is more qualified to write laws? They write laws that serve the interests of their colleagues. Trust the experts.

SkyBelow
0 replies
1h8m

Is that really the case? Judges shut down some loopholes or 'hacks', but then others are allowed as being perfectly acceptable. The rational that decides when one is allowed and one is not seems to be a second level to the hacking. You can't just exploit the law, but find a way to ensure the exploitation is ruled valid.

Given judges are people, it does make it more 'squishy' than things on the tech side. Hacks have to appear clever but not insulting, and sometimes you have to fish for the right judge or court to support you, but that is all just the social engineering part of the hacking.

devjab
4 replies
12h58m

Just wait till you learn that law isn’t really law. I once worked on an OSS project for 8 municipalities to handle employee work related driving. The Danish tax law on the area is short and the simplest law text I’ve ever read, and we implemented it as such. Only to find out that the 8 cities interpreted this short piece or law in more than 8 different ways. Yes, even within the same admin they didn’t agree on how it should be interpreted. Some of the lawyers even got in heated discussions because they felt the other were breaking the law.

Anyway it wasn’t till later in the process where one of the lawyers who didn’t seem to have a whole lot of fucks to give explained it to me at the coffee machine. Basically our tax agency decides which interpretation is correct, but you don’t actually have to be correct until they directly tell you that you’re wrong. Which often won’t ever happen as virtually every organisation in the country handles employee driving and there are only five members of the tax agency doing check ups.

Jolter
1 replies
10h46m

Sounds like your software, if programmed the way you wanted, would have unified it all to one single interpretation of the law. Then you would have put a few lawyers out of work… No wonder they shot it down!

devjab
0 replies
6h50m

Technically there is only one. Our tax agency happened to actually audit one city, and then all the others after it was revealed that the first one did indeed break the law.

ozim
0 replies
5h54m

I think this is why lots of software projects fail - not because they are wrong - but it is just not what people want (and people might want things that are not according to the law ;) ). Then if it rubs the wrong way people who are in power then even if your project is technically right it gets canned and they blame developers on not delivering :(

I can see it in business software I work on. Interesting part is "required fields", someone makes 10-20 fields required on a form to fill in - but then people start complaining it takes too much time and why they have to fill in those fields and managers of those people come over complaining that software sucks ... well, great but we did not make the requirements, that was company/customer that wanted that.

djtango
0 replies
6h30m

This is essentially why social trust is so important especially in non-authoritarian systems

syndicatedjelly
0 replies
13h8m

I don't think that's a very good understanding of what lawyers do

strogonoff
0 replies
10h17m

A lawyer friend back in law school heard that people who go into law are disproportionately psychopaths seeking the ability to manipulate society and power over people for personal benefit.

They tested it by somehow sneaking in psychopath test questions to other law students (without them knowing), who “passed” (not in a good way).

This is anecdata, but I found it convincingly told. I wonder whether a proper study would assess it (having doubts that would be allowed).

dylan604
0 replies
13h6m

It's also for the cred. In legal circles, the first lawyer to do something enters l337 status. You think the legal team for Trump are doing it for the money he's going to not pay them? Hellz naw! Their names will be written about from here to eternity.

ggm
17 replies
14h10m

Hamlet might have had a point. This feels very like a-moral application of years of legal training.

On this basis, any transactions, of any nature which come with an Implied contract acceptance are going to be superseded by words which enable get-out-of-jail-free for all parent, associated, restructured companies, forever.

Watch out when you sign the hotel bill. You just promised to give your body on death to the parent company's medical school.

I doubt it's that simple but you would hope the justice system is going to tear this legal theory a new exit hole and not wash their hands first. Specificity is everything in a contract. Sweeping terms, perpetual licence would be a nightmare.

(Not a lawyer, which will be obvious)

0cf8612b2e1e
8 replies
13h51m

I know binding arbitration is the new hotness, but it seems unlikely this is the first time a company has tried to link a generic “absolved-from-everything” clause to an unrelated incident.

throwaway2037
1 replies
13h13m

Wow, the example on that page is brilliant. To quote:

    > For instance, in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020) the Supreme Court of Canada found an arbitration clause requiring gig workers in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce was unconscionable and so void.
LOL. Uber, again.

actionfromafar
0 replies
12h34m

“Inventing”!

ozim
0 replies
12h35m

Not everything you sign will hold in a court.

That is why we have courts and judges for.

ggm
2 replies
13h35m

Binding arbitration WAS the new hotness. Some companies have learned that at scale it's a nightmare. Works for one case, falls over for 10,000 who refuse to bind to a single case and pursue the action, at your company cost.

eadler
1 replies
13h22m

There is a growing trend of companies inserting "mass arbitration" or "coordinated filing" clauses into their contracts. It isn't clear if these will be enforceable.

The arbitration providers (AAA, JAMS, etc.) have also started implementing their own "mass arbitration" provisions. In some cases even providing subscription bulk pricing.

Other problems: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/#mass-arbit...

(I should add the above + references at some point to the website)

cryptonector
0 replies
7h3m

Wow, that's an awesome site.

Log_out_
0 replies
13h11m

Up next proof based automated arbitration. If input legal argument identifies case, automated verdict. Heard: only new arguments for viability on changing,creating a new proof.

manmal
4 replies
12h56m

I’m pretty sure in the EU this would be dismissed because nobody can be expected to really read the ToS when subscribing to a streaming service.

sebazzz
0 replies
4h5m

In EU you have regulation 93/13/EEG. Power to the consumer.

It is codified into the law of every member state, but might differ on some implementation details. For instance, in the Netherlands forced arbitration can only exists if it fair and not burdensome, and disputes can still be taken to state court. Also these clauses cannot be applied for totally different disputes (like restaurant vs streaming service like in this case).

ggm
0 replies
12h43m

Paul Vixie notoriously included some text in an IETF draft which was of the "your first born is given to satan" type and called out all the "I have read the draft" people in a working group. Fair call. I hadn't read the draft so my first born was safe.

SkyBelow
0 replies
1h14m

Contract law as a whole has a major flaw where the vast majority of consumers are entering into contracts they cannot provide informed consent to. To call these consensual contracts is to reduce consent to a saying yes even if one does not understand what they agree to, which is a standard for consent that is invalid in any other application.

ChocolateGod
0 replies
6h32m

Yeh, in the EU there's various instruments/treaties that limit arbitration agreements.

ggm
0 replies
11h16m

Yes. Thank you for correcting my faulty attribution.

ahazred8ta
0 replies
10h8m

Some say the bee stings; but I say, 'tis the bee's wax, for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never my own man since.

tsimionescu
16 replies
12h58m

The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use.

I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant.

This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.

HeavenFox
11 replies
12h44m

Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiting a website.

fastball
9 replies
12h40m

It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.

bee_rider
3 replies
12h23m

Yeah; wonder why their lawyers didn’t go with that angle. It seems much more intuitive.

tpmoney
0 replies
2h57m

They did. Their answer to the lawsuit advances that argument. This is a separate motion to stay the lawsuit proceedings and refer it to arbitration per the terms they claim were agreed to.

Or put another way this motion isn’t claiming they aren’t liable because of the agreement to arbitration, they’re arguing that the venue is incorrect based on that agreement. The motion is for a stay of proceedings pending the arbitration.

Edit:

In fact the plaintiffs answer to this motion probably illustrates why this motion was filed in the first place. If you have and arbitration clause but you participate in a lawsuit voluntarily, the courts view this as waiving your right to arbitration. Presumably this is to protect against a case where a side engages in a lawsuit and seeing that it’s going badly for them, tries to have it switched to arbitration later. In order to have arbitration at all, they have to start by arguing for arbitration before committing too far into a court case

thrill
0 replies
4h27m

Because the purpose of a lawyer is to go with every viable angle.

nraynaud
0 replies
10h58m

They probably did, it’s just not newsworthy. They generally give as many arguments as they can in support of a motion they just need one to work, but the news is only interested in what’s surprising, not reporting on the trial.

nraynaud
1 replies
11h0m

The restaurant is a separate entity? I just assumed it was owned by Disney from the mere existence of the lawsuit.

echoangle
1 replies
10h51m

Isn’t the restaurant operated by Disney?

caddemon
0 replies
6h6m

No, though maybe there is a reasonable assumption they enforce more oversight on tenants than a typical mall would. They do publish the restaurant menu on their website (including allergen info) and you can make reservations through their app. But the restaurant is ultimately a tenant operated by someone else in Disney's free to enter outdoor shopping mall. The original source of the incorrect info was definitely the restaurant, and the restaurant is also the one that doubled down on the incorrect info when the woman asked IRL. The main reason to sue Disney here is they're much richer than a Florida Irish pub chain.

inetknght
0 replies
5h47m

It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.

Is it? Then why is Disney in the name of the location?

tsimionescu
0 replies
9h33m

You're right, I didn't realize that from the court docs. The tickets are just as much unrelated as the video streaming, this is just as absurd as it appeared on its face...

pishpash
2 replies
12h46m

The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death.

So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity.

The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)

tsimionescu
1 replies
9h32m

Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...

caddemon
0 replies
6h3m

This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.

dathinab
0 replies
6h56m

but even then, forced arbitration should not be legal for anything more serious ever (and isn't in countires with a less broken legal system)

paulpauper
16 replies
13h41m

self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died.

Even the Epi pen did not work. Must have been a really bad reaction. Imagine going though life knowing that even a tiny misstep can kill you.

gedy
15 replies
13h12m

I'm not blaming the victim, but would never trust my life to random restaurants and employees. There's just no way that strangers give a damn enough to risk it, even if you tell them to be careful.

mgaunard
7 replies
12h55m

are you suggesting that people with allergies should always cook every one of their meals?

That's quite unreasonable.

gedy
4 replies
12h40m

If your allergies are as life threatening as they were here? I would definitely prepare my own food.

alexey-salmin
3 replies
12h21m

Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life.

Other people often voluntarily partake in activities that involve low-to-moderate risk of death because they enjoy them.

lupusreal
2 replies
9h39m

Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life

Don't be hyperbolic. It means that avoiding death at the cost of preparing your own meals is more important than eating at restaurants. Restaurants aren't very important and preparing your own meals isn't very taxing, so it's not a high bar to clear.

mgaunard
0 replies
8h32m

Many people would consider food to be the greatest joy in life, and eating out at a restaurant to be a treat.

There is also the social aspect, it's one of the best opportunities to enjoy a good moment and bond over, be it with family, lovers, friends or colleagues.

Even outside of all that, the new generation of city dwellers rarely cooks at all because of their active lifestyle.

alexey-salmin
0 replies
9h18m

Preparing meals is about an hour a day which would be more than 50% of my free time outside of work, sleep and training. This is extremely taxing and I'd happily exchange it for a low probability of death in a restaurant.

lupusreal
0 replies
9h58m

Cooking food yourself is reasonable if one fuckup is likely to kill you. It's what I would do.

It wouldn't be so much of a burden, it would only change my routine a few times a year.

jhhh
0 replies
12h24m

Should they have prefaced their statement of personal preference with 'I'm not making a universal normative declaration' to make it clear they weren't doing that?

stevesimmons
3 replies
12h42m

When you have a potentially life-threatening allergy, everything involves calculations about potential risks and tradeoffs, all the way back up the supply chain to the farm.

Otherwise you're condemned to staying home with no social life, eating unprocessed basic food. And that's no way to live.

Even then, that's not risk free, either. I've had a severe peanut reaction to porridge I made from plain rolled oats, from a brand I'd been eating for years and trusted.

gedy
2 replies
12h36m

Otherwise you're condemned to staying home with no social life, eating unprocessed basic food. And that's no way to live.

You can live a full life and still bring or prepare your own food without eating out. If a place bars you from bringing food, I think that's lawsuit worthy with a condition like hers.

tsimionescu
1 replies
12h26m

The point is that food you're preparing yourself is only marginally safer than food at a restaurant. You still have no way of knowing if the ingredients you're using haven't been accidentally contaminated with the allergen.

shiroiushi
0 replies
11h12m

No, you can't be 100% sure, but factories are much more controlled environments than restaurant kitchens.

silisili
2 replies
12h37m

At first I tended to agree with that notion - most restaurants are staffed by people who don't get paid enough to really care, and even if they did, humans are fallible.

Then I realized that even cooking at home, you're using ingredients from some random factories that are similarly staffed by people in the same boat capable of making similar mistakes.

I have no idea what the perfect solution is, as personally growing every single thing you eat(or drink) seems absurd if not impossible.

shiroiushi
0 replies
11h14m

There is no perfect solution. However, factories are much more controlled environments than restaurant kitchens, so your odds are much better. Plus, these days, they require foods to have labels for potential allergens for things like using the same facility that makes other foods with those allergens (i.e. even if the product doesn't have $allergen, if other products made there do, they warn you).

So if I had a condition like this, I'd feel much safer with factory-made foods/ingredients than with food from any restaurant.

Dove
0 replies
10h3m

This is an argument commonly raised in favor of a whole food diet: if what you're buying is recognizable, there's less room for tampering. Buying an apple, there could be pesticide residue on the skin, but buying applesauce, goodness knows what they put in there, intentionally or otherwise. And in fact, this is advice I've encountered when buying spices (which tends to be international and a lot of middlemen): buy whole to reduce the chances of adulteration. Whole cinnamon is hard to fake; ground cinnamon could contain literally anything.

While no defense is perfect, and you'd generally like to know and trust the source of your food (and this is an important piece of the puzzle), preferring things in a visually verifiable whole format does offer a way to limit the possible or likely damage. It works in restaurants, too: you can order an unadorned steak, and might still worry about peanut oil residue from the grill, but it beats ordering stir fry and wondering what the abundant gloopy sauce is made of and if the cook even fully knows or if he gets it out of a can too.

madbicyclist
15 replies
14h12m

Is it really worth dodging one lawsuit at the cost of the impending disgust from thousands of potential customers?

add-sub-mul-div
8 replies
14h4m

I feel in my bones that sometime in the last five years, large enough companies have lost the fear of pissing off the public. Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act. Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted. We're about to enter a new phase of powerlessness.

mandmandam
4 replies
13h47m

Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act

I know it's tempting, but don't blame "consumers".

For one thing, it's mathematically impossible for people to be appropriately outraged over every instance of corporate evil. There's too much of it.

If you want to assign blame, maybe put it on corporate media (like Disney lol). They're the ones who sold us every war, every atrocity we're complicit in, and covered up or distracted from the most important crimes which enabled everything else.

_bin_
2 replies
13h17m

And yet, not doing business with disney is so easy. All you have to do is not spend $10/month on their streaming thing. Or not spend thousands on a trip to their park thing. Or not pay a $20 premium for their toy things.

I can't recall ever giving disney money as an adult. And I think the last time my family did was buying a DVD copy of Finding Nemo some time around 2008.

So the outrage threshold to "do something" in this case is "barely outraged at all". In any case, going after one company is a more, not less, realistic target than attacking "corporate media" as a whole.

AlotOfReading
1 replies
12h53m

You might be surprised how broad their reach is. Checking 538 for the upcoming US election? Disney. Popular YouTubers like Epic Rap Battles of history. Disney again. ESPN. Also Disney.

They also have significant investments in most of the other big media companies. There's a high chance something you've watched recently led to compensation for Disney.

_bin_
0 replies
3h1m

I might check FiveThirtyEight once in a while but use an ad blocker. I don't really watch much content regardless and my main newspapers (Economist, FT, WSJ, NYT) aren't owned by or affiliated with the mouse.

In any case, let's stipulate cutting out direct revenue to disney is the easiest and largest step. If a significant proportion of customers just stopped going to parks that would be a serious financial hit.

add-sub-mul-div
0 replies
13h16m

Consumers have free will, agency, and responsibility. We're not NPCs. We don't have to be outraged every day, we just have to stop casually shoveling our money over to just anyone.

nebula8804
0 replies
12h33m

I would totally agree with you but I think this silent recession is starting to force a miniscule amount of change. Mcdonalds recently had a loss after quarter upon quarter of raking in the profits during the pandemic and treating their customers like crap. The automakers letting their dealers pull all that nonsense of "dealer adjusted" pricing has really come back to bite some automakers really hard. Now brands like Stellantis have their cars piling up and they will probably have to take massive losses to move the metal.

hagbard_c
0 replies
9h6m

Big enough entities, whether commercial or political or religious. From Apple via Disney, past the DNC and Microsoft towards the Vatican, 'might makes right' is the prevailing attitude. It takes a lot of 'customers' to revolt against such behemoths so they feel safe in the (mostly correct) assumption such a revolt will not get off the ground.

77pt77
0 replies
13h55m

Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted

Eg: Boeing.

justinclift
2 replies
13h13m

158M subscribers according to the article.

Sounds like someone should let them know. ;)

al_borland
1 replies
12h18m

Will it matter? The article mentioned he just signed up for a 1 month free trial years ago. If they cancel their subscription, will the contract be void, or will Disney still hold it over their heads for the rest of their life?

This makes me want to cancel Disney+, but can I revoke my agreement in the process?

justinclift
0 replies
12h0m

Those are good questions, and seem pretty relevant. It'd be good to have them clarified.

158M members certainly seems enough for a class action. :)

yew
0 replies
13h43m

The most important lesson of the 2010s is that neckbeards and g*mers whine online, but they can't stop paying.

readthenotes1
0 replies
14h9m

Disney isn't worried about a few thousand customers, and most of them either won't hear of this or won't know how else to occupy their kids' attention

herpdyderp
0 replies
14h8m

Thousand of customers is nothing to Disney

fortran77
13 replies
14h33m

Wow!

In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

One month free trial! But the Disney Lawyers found it.

See also Newsday article:

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant...

justahuman74
5 replies
14h10m

If this argument actually works, then laws need serious change

newzisforsukas
2 replies
14h3m

Seems like any reasonable court would find it unenforceable, but who knows

garciasn
1 replies
13h52m

As someone who just went through a messy divorce planned for the entirety of the 18m affair my ex-wife was having, there is no court on this earth that I would ever say is reasonable.

janniehater
0 replies
13h41m

I'm sorry to hear that, I hope things are looking brighter

fortran77
0 replies
14h4m

Agreed. They should at least say that an artibration clause in a contract can never apply to anything that's not covered by that particular contract for that particular transaction.

77pt77
0 replies
13h55m

As in everything law related, that depends on the parties involved.

tsimionescu
3 replies
12h31m

This News day article is disingenuous. If you look at the filing (someone else in the thread has posted the documents), Disney is saying that the husband bought the tickets to Disneyland (where the restaurant is, and without which they couldn't have accessed it) using his Disney+ account, and that the ticket purchase includes terms that he explicitly agreed to which re-iterate that the Disney+ terms of use apply as well. So there is some plausible argument that the terms apply to services they received at Disneyland, it's not "yes, but he has also subscribed to our streaming service".

I still hope that this doesn't pass muster - your right to seek a lawsuit for grievous injury or death shouldn't be covered by some checkbox you clicked on a site.

tsimionescu
0 replies
9h35m

Oh, you're right and I was completely wrong. So Disney really is just trying to hold someone to a contract for a completely unrelated service...

fortran77
0 replies
5h3m

Don't spread misinformation.

The fact is don't need a park ticket to enter Raglin Road. It's on WDW property, but it's outside a park gate.

djmips
2 replies
13h57m

How can trial terms be enforced in perpetuity!?

And the park and restaurant has nothing to do with Disney+ Streaming.

tsimionescu
1 replies
12h29m

The article is just misunderstanding a bit. It's not about Disney+ Streaming, the tickets to the park were bought through the Disney+ account, that's where the relation is (according to Disney, at least).

tsimionescu
0 replies
9h30m

I'm correcting this everywhere I said it - I'm wrong and the article is right. The park tickets are separate from access to the mall, so they're just as unrelated to the death as the video streaming was...

fastball
9 replies
12h55m

While Disney is indeed trying to get this dismissed as described, I think it is also worth noting that the restaurant in question is not actually owned by Disney. Disney is the landlord.

However the plaintiff is suing Disney on the grounds that the menu of the restaurant was published on Disney's website, and that within this menu was a claim that the restaurant is "allergen-free". But given that it does not seem like Disney produced this menu (only re-published it on behalf of the lessee), that seems like very tenuous grounds on which to sue Disney.

By filing this motion to dismiss, Disney is saying "if that connection is enough basis to sue us, then the pre-existing contract we have with the plaintiff should be enough to dismiss".

I agree with other commenters in this thread that we do not want to set the precedent that a dismissal on these grounds would create, but at the same time I think the plaintiff suing Disney in the first place is overly litigious.

pishpash
5 replies
12h38m

That's disingenuous. Menu being on Disney's website makes Disney more than a landlord, more like a service provider. Is Disney responsible for what's on its site or not? What if the menu had some hate speech or terrorism?

fastball
4 replies
12h33m

Disney Springs is a mall. Most malls re-publish menus and other relevant materials on behalf of their lessees on their website for the benefit and convenience of the consumer.

The idea that this act is somehow an endorsement of said materials is what is disingenuous. Nowhere does Disney claim that they have validated the menu as correct, and I personally don't think it is reasonable for someone to imply that they are doing so. If the restaurant is liable due to misrepresentations they made in their menu, they made those same misrepresentations to Disney as much as to the plaintiff.

Even if you do think they are less landlord and more "service provider", that doesn't matter much either, given Section 230 of the CDA. Service providers are indeed not liable for hate speech and "terrorism" created by 3rd parties.

On top of all that, finding Disney at fault on account of publishing a menu also requires that the restaurant is actually at fault in the first place, which has not been demonstrated.

pishpash
3 replies
12h15m

Usually sites redirect you to another site with a modal heavily disclaiming that they are in any way related or responsible for content. If Disney did not do that and it's on their site then sure they use the CDA backstop if they can demonstrate they are not the source of the menu. Why are you certain the menu isn't co-developed or branded in some way though? I'm not sure why to even bring up the Disney+ user agreement if it were so clearcut, especially as it engages at the level of presuming the service is indeed a Disney one. Isn't it curious?

fastball
2 replies
11h58m

That's a fair point. I looked at the websites of some other malls and it does seem like Disney has gone "above and beyond" to re-publish the menu in its entirety on their website, where other malls would just link to the lessee's website for that purpose.

However, I have now checked the Wayback Machine to see what the website looked like[1] in September 2023 (before the death in October 2023), and honestly even if Disney themselves produced this menu content (which does not seem to be what the plaintiff is claiming), then it still feels like the plaintiff has misrepresented what was on this website. Specifically the plaintiff says that the menu claimed items were "allergen-free", when in actuality the disclaimer specifically says the restaurant does not claim that.

Copying the relevant section from the end of the menu:

About our allergy-friendly menu items: Guests may consult with a chef or special diets trained Cast Member before placing an order. We use reasonable efforts in our sourcing, preparation and handling procedures to avoid the introduction of the named allergens into allergy-friendly menu choices. While we take steps to prevent cross-contact, we do not have separate allergy-friendly kitchens and are unable to guarantee that a menu item is completely free of allergens. Allergy-friendly offerings are reliant on supplier ingredient labels. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the contents of each food item. Allergen advisory statements (e.g., "may contain") are not regulated and therefore not taken into consideration when developing allergy-friendly meals. It is ultimately our Guests' discretion to make an informed choice based upon their individual dietary needs.

Menu items and prices are subject to change without notice.

* Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish, or eggs may increase your risk of foodborne illness.

Our plant-based menu items are made without animal meat, dairy, eggs and honey.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230922075713/https://www.disne...

lesuorac
1 replies
6h15m

then it still feels like the plaintiff has misrepresented what was on this website. Specifically the plaintiff says that the menu claimed items were "allergen-free", when in actuality the disclaimer specifically says the restaurant does not claim that.

Well, while the website definitely puts a lot of distance on allergen-free; if you can't offer a food allergen-free then you shouldn't. Same as if you can't take the bones out of a chicken wing; don't offer boneless wings.

However, if you go to the restaurant in-person and you ask the server who asks the chef and they both say it can be done allergen-free on multiple requests I think it's safe to safe that the website's disclaimer is overriden. Which is what the lawsuit claims [1] (I wish I could get a courtlistener link but I had no success [2]).

[1]: https://www.scribd.com/document/708687171/Raglan-Road-Lawsui...

[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Disney&type=o&order_by=scor...

caddemon
0 replies
5h48m

Sure that overrides the disclaimer for the restaurant, and I'm inclined to agree with you there because every restaurant has some disclaimer like this that if enforced would make any "allergen-free" claims worthless everywhere.

But that would still make Disney less liable, because the in person conversation with staff/chef has nothing to do with Disney here.

Although it is interesting that the restaurants operated by others still use the "cast member" language. I do think Disney tries to have a bit of an illusion that everything on property including Disney springs is them. I still wouldn't consider it enough legally here but there is at least an argument about assumption of oversight.

tsimionescu
2 replies
12h37m

It's also important to note that Disney is saying that the plaintiff bought the Disneyland tickets through this Disney+ account, and that the purchase agreement re-iterated the general Disney+ terms as well. So the connection isn't "he happened to be a subscriber of Disney's streaming service" as the original article makes it sound. It's "he clicked agree on these terms when he bought access to Disneyland, where the restaurant was".

seba_dos1
1 replies
11h51m

The article states that tickets haven't been used. That's not where the restaurant was.

tsimionescu
0 replies
9h34m

You're right, I only looked at Disney's filing and didn't understand that the tickets are just as unrelated as the streaming service...

nadermx
1 replies
12h59m

This was filed in may, was there a response already from the plaintiffs?

torstenvl
11 replies
13h34m

If the agreement at the time is anything like the current agreement, this is a serious misrepresentation to the court.

The terms do require Disney+ users to "agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes" with some IP exceptions.

But "Disputes" is a term of art that "includes any claim, dispute, action, or other controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or common law, between you and Disney concerning the Disney Products or this Agreement" (emphasis added).

What are the Disney Products? They are "certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel."

I hope the lawyers get sanctioned and disbarred.

userbinator
4 replies
13h11m

services in any media format or channel

I suspect they may argue that it covers physical services such as those provided by Disney Springs.

pishpash
2 replies
12h57m

What media format are the onion rings?

teractiveodular
0 replies
11h3m

Tor, of course.

hunter2_
0 replies
12h35m

If given as a gift, or representing all the other fried foods, Token Ring.

noisy_boy
0 replies
10h20m

products

I'm sure onion rings can fit into that

bArray
2 replies
10h4m

I don't see how you can be forced to resolve all disputes via arbitration. I could understand signing an agreement to first attempt arbitration (with timeouts and bounds set), but it feels like you shouldn't be able to fundamentally sign this right away. They could literally enter into indefinite arbitration if they wanted to.

I think this is a terrible use anyway:

1. The one month free trial contract was only valid during the one month, back in 2019.

2. The contract, even if it was still valid, was with the person who died, and not the family.

3. Due to Disney's claimed negligence, arbitration has become impossible, as they have now died.

If this is allowed to stand, it means that when visiting a Disney park, an employee could gun down hundreds of people, and they would have zero recourse. They could poison thousands of guests, and they would be stuck to resolution by arbitration, which is a process they entirely control.

eadmund
0 replies
5h51m

I don't see how you can be forced to resolve all disputes via arbitration.

Ostensibly, the claimant wasn’t forced but contracted to do so. The problem, of course, is that an EULA for TV streaming shouldn’t extend to every interaction one has with one’s counterparty. And of course contracts should be negotiated between equals, not imposed unilaterally. The shrinkwrap agreement should IMHO be eliminated: one should either trade under standard society-wide terms, or negotiate terms on a case-by-case basis.

If this is allowed to stand, it means that when visiting a Disney park, an employee could gun down hundreds of people, and they would have zero recourse. They could poison thousands of guests, and they would be stuck to resolution by arbitration, which is a process they entirely control.

Well, criminal charges would still be possible. Remember, the criminal and civil systems are different.

And of course arbitration is not supposed to be completely controlled by one of the parties. It may be in fact, but it’s not supposed to be. When the arbitration is between equals, it’s probably pretty fair; when it’s unilateral, it may not be.

dadver
0 replies
7h28m

If I'm understanding the article correctly, re: (2), the 'contract' was between Disney and the widower husband (Piccolo), not the deceased (Tangsuan). Disney claims he (Piccolo) must abide by Disney+ ToS and arbitrate while his defense argues he's a plaintiff for the deceased's estate and not representing himself.

firesteelrain
1 replies
7h39m

While I don’t think the Disney attorney’s will prevail, they are doing their job and will not be sanctioned or disbarred.

acdha
0 replies
6h46m

They won’t get disbarred because it’s a single offense but misrepresenting the law to their client and the court is not their job. Trotting out this excuse for lawyers is like deploying the “maximize shareholder value” canard to excuse corporate misbehavior: not only wrong but guaranteed to encourage more abuse.

throwawaycities
0 replies
13h2m

At worst Disney & its lawyers get hit with a 57.105 motion under Florida Law, if the plaintiff’s counsel files the safe harbor notice first.

No one is being disbarred for filing a motion to dismiss, even if the motion is found to be frivolous - which it might not be, even if the motion is denied.

Animats
11 replies
14h11m

Need to query the California PUC about whether having signed up for Google relieves them from liabilty if you're hit by a Waymo.

amluto
9 replies
14h10m

Or whether having ever done business with Tesla prevents one from suing Tesla if someone else’s autopiloting car hits them.

Presumably a sensible court would hold that no possible interpretation of a contract affects a lawsuit unrelated to the scope of the product or services provided under that contract.

NewJazz
6 replies
13h56m

Tesla doesn't have driverless cars, so I'm not worried.

The drivers are responsible if the software shits itself.

scarby2
5 replies
13h22m

This will absolutely change in the next decade.

lpapez
3 replies
12h54m

As announced by their CEO in the previous decade...

bee_rider
2 replies
12h50m

I think they must mean the second sentence will happen in the next decade. Tesla releasing a self driving car… probably not so likely.

scarby2
1 replies
1h13m

Given that other companies have self driving cars operating (but not for sale) today (I've taken rides in them).

I think Tesla might have to accept they need to use more sensors, and maybe even licence someone else's tech but Tesla will not accept being the only "luxury" automaker not offering self driving.

NewJazz
0 replies
48m

Yeah but someone has to overcome their ego before being willing to license the tech for their most hyped feature... We'll see how long that takes.

Adding sensors would indeed be an easy W.

bee_rider
0 replies
12h51m

It might, it would be pretty reasonable if the company that sells a self-driving car is the one liable when it crashes into something.

Tesla will be shielded by their brilliant strategy of never releasing the feature.

ldoughty
0 replies
13h32m

If you have a Twitter account, you agree to arbitration if someone drives their Tesla, on auto pilot, into your bedroom. Damages are limited to your Twitter subscription fee, or $1.

I can see it happening.

epicureanideal
0 replies
13h49m

I stopped the job application process to a well known car maker as a software engineer about a decade ago because the application, to the best of my memory at this time, included an arbitration clause that seemed to me to be very broad. Because of that arbitration clause I have not considered applying to them for more than a decade.

tsimionescu
0 replies
12h47m

If this decision goes through, and you've ordered a Waymo through your Google account, and that Waymo car, say, hits you as it's parking - yes, likely the Google account terms of service would be found to apply. Which is insane, but such is a rigidly contractualistic society.

blackoil
9 replies
13h53m

Why would they even try this? The amount of bad publicity they'll get shouldn't cover up for a small chance the court will accept it.

vel0city
4 replies
13h48m

What bad press? Think Disneyland isn't going to be packed again soon?

al_borland
3 replies
12h21m

Will people be willing to even test a free trial of Disney+ if it means Disney then has them over a barrel for the rest of their life?

caddemon
2 replies
5h41m

Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms.

To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.

al_borland
1 replies
4h42m

They own a lot. They have 20 property holding companies, and only a few are obviously owned by Disney, not sure if that also carries to the businesses on all of those properties. It is possible someone could be on Disney owned property, and thus caught under the Disney+ agreement, without knowing it.

I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_...

caddemon
0 replies
1h17m

Fair enough, I knew they owned a lot of entertainment/media related companies but didn't realize they owned additional properties that weren't explicitly advertised as such.

Though in the case of Disney Springs they actually don't own the restaurant, just the property, so I'm not sure what liability they have regardless of this motion. If Disney technically owns the property but independent operators are involved, Disney isn't really the right party to bring a suit against anyway (though obviously they are large and people tend to file broad lawsuits).

OccamsMirror
2 replies
13h11m

Do you think the average person even understands the title? People don't care.

A4ET8a8uTh0
1 replies
7h19m

They don't. However, if this motion somehow got granted, a lot of people would get a quick and painful lesson in reading contracts/TOS as more companies would add ridiculous things. Frankly, I ALMOST want Disney to be granted this so that we can have a clear indication on how enforceable TOSs really are.

It would truly be a game changer.

mettamage
0 replies
6h15m

It sounds weird. TOS should have some limitations. This sounds akin to "give your soul to us and we're good."

Can you really just put that into a TOS and make it enforcable?

How the hell are we a society then? There's nothing social about it.

globular-toast
0 replies
10h57m

It's a children's entertainment company. Most of their customers can't even read.

h_tbob
6 replies
10h59m

While what happened is awful, it’s hard to blame anybody.

Anaphylaxis is a huge issue. I think we should chill out and recognize that people make mistakes, and it’s not fair to pin somebody’s death on accidental contamination.

Should they be more careful? Yes.

But you can’t screw someone for this because it’s just not fair. It the universes fault, we shouldn’t be fighting each other.

My 2 cents

UberFly
3 replies
10h47m

I agree in principal. Someone with severe enough nut allergies to the point that they'll kill you shouldn't trust any source of food outside your own limited control. The next logical step is restaurants telling patrons they aren't allowed to order if they have food allergies.

justneedaname
2 replies
6h25m

I don't subscribe to this take either. As the partner of someone with a server nut allergy why should we be restricted to only eating food we have prepared? Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard. Some people / establishments just don't seem to take it seriously though, like when a flight attendant told my partner she would be fine to eat the snacks they handed out and that they didn't contain nuts... the bag of roasted corn and nuts...

crazygringo
1 replies
5h0m

Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard.

To the contrary, it's actually extremely hard.

When I order, I probably get something incorrect ~10% of the time. Whether fine dining or fast food.

To deal with life-threatening allergies, you need to get that error rate down from 10% to, what, 0.000001% or something?

You're literally asking for hospital- and pharmacy-level procedures, controls, and training. Which would make restaurants far more expensive and there would be far less of them.

Not impossible, but yes extremely hard, when servers mix up orders and cooks mix up tickets and runners mix up plates and tables.

BobaFloutist
0 replies
2h18m

They don't need to make all the food with that level of accuracy, only meals called out as necessarily allergy free.

Restaurants have specific procedures for allergy meals. It's not that hard to do an extra good job when someone discloses an allergy.

justneedaname
1 replies
6h31m

Why can't we blame those who prepared the food? In settings such as this, at a company as large as Disney, it's not acceptable for there to be cross contamination of allergens. If it turns out to be a mislabelling of ingredients or some other factor outside the restaurant's control then fair enough but you can't just absolve them of their responsibility claiming it's "the universes fault".

whamlastxmas
0 replies
4h26m

It’s at minimum shared blame. People have to work in kitchens with unrealistic work loads and stress. The company is at fault for pushing this environment while knowing it lends itself to mistakes.

mandmandam
4 replies
13h50m

There ought to be consequences for even trying something this stupid.

Those Disney attorneys feel perfectly safe pulling this, and that's a problem imo.

upon_drumhead
3 replies
12h55m

I disagree. Once it's thrown out as an invalid argument, we'll have documented case law indicating that this argument won't be valid and it will reshape the future actions. It's an important step in the process.

p_j_w
0 replies
11h15m

Companies will still be able to at least try and drag things out while the other party runs out of money. Precedent doesn’t change that.

hugh-avherald
0 replies
6h0m

Your argument would apply to anything unlawful.

LeonB
0 replies
11h8m

This fails the asymmetry test. There are effectively infinite variations on any wrong argument, they don’t all need to be tested. There’s no progress gained by having to engage in a war of attrition.

fastball
4 replies
13h40m

Is it normal to go into anaphylaxis an appreciable time after eating the food that supposedly caused the allergic reaction?

Everyone I've ever met that has a severe allergy has an adverse reaction immediately after exposure to the allergen.

scarby2
0 replies
13h8m

It's not normal. It is however possible.

quitit
0 replies
7h11m

While delayed anaphylaxis is not unusual, it's the wording of this article that is a touch misleading. This article states "later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood".

This gives the impression of some time passing, and that they perhaps went to Planet Hollywood (presumably to eat again).

According to an earlier article this isn't the case. Instead they ate at about 8pm, and by 8:45pm she had the reaction and entered the Planet Hollywood to seek medical assistance, with the ambulance called nearly immediately.

https://wdwnt.com/2024/02/doctor-dies-allergic-reaction-ragl...

keane
0 replies
13h8m

Onset is minutes to hours, usually within one or two hours of exposure. "In rare cases, anaphylaxis may be delayed for hours." (source https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anaphylaxis/s...) Additionally: "anaphylactic reactions can also present in a biphasic manner in up to 20% of cases. Even after successful management of the initial presenting symptoms, there can be a recurrence of symptoms peaking 8 to 11 hours after the initial reaction." (source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/)

Gravityloss
3 replies
8h2m

A colleague of mine has lived in the USA for years. When visiting the local office here he commented, paraphrased "the craziest thing there is that at any given time you can make a tiny mistake, and the rest of your life is messed up completely". I think ruining random individuals' lives is not a sign of a good legal system. There are some other systems that try to avoid that more, though of course that still happens, and there are some things to be discussed on what kind of contracts are legal etc. There are of course different legal traditions in the world and so on too, in the bigger picture, but still, it seems so disastrous to the individual looking from outside.

spywaregorilla
1 replies
6h0m

For example, killing someone by ignoring their allergies?

I find it very odd that someone would live in the US for years and have that be their main takeaway.

wang_li
0 replies
4h49m

It’s more interesting that, I’m assuming, they categorize mistakes by the nature of the error and not the results of the error. Not checking your blind spot on an empty road is a tiny mistake. Not checking your blind spot causing a bus driver to swerve to avoid a collision, but the swerve resulted in the bus crashing into a petrol truck leading to a massive fire and dozens of dead school children is not a tiny mistake.

naikrovek
0 replies
2h13m

our legal system was built with the assumptions that there would never be any actively malevolent attorneys representing clients, or actively malevolent judges, assumptions that are clearly very wrong.

and now we have a problem, because until those individuals have a very long, very provable track record of malevolence, there is little that can be done to combat them.

yieldcrv
2 replies
11h39m

Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

Okay this is full blown dystopia, the onion couldnt even make this up

Christ, she even self administered an epipen, was transported to a hospital and died anyway

This is a nightmare like, just be a human Disney, there are so many humans involved here

alt227
1 replies
7h52m

It is important to remember the details here.

Disney dont run the restuarant, they are just the landlord.

The customer didnt pay anything to disney, they just visited a restuarant at a freely open Mall which happened to be owned by disney.

The only reason this person is trying to sue disney is because the disney mall website republished the menu of the restuarant which said 'Allergen Free' on it.

The absurd counter repsonse from disney is just their way of drawing attention to the fact that the original case is just as absurd. Why are they suing Disney when they had nothing to do with the food served, the staff serving it, or even the company that runs the restuarant?

yieldcrv
0 replies
45m

If they want a summary judgement they could just start off by pointing those things out, like not being an accurate defendant.

Maybe they did in the actual court filing and the rest is just “but if we are a defendant here’s some other ways we covered our ass”

I’m going to go look. Id feel a lot better if the media is the problem here

ninetyninenine
2 replies
7h14m

There’s a major conundrum here.

If the courts let Disney be called guilty it renders all fine print not legally binding.

This changes society itself.

Disney is technically right. Being technically right is well defined.

At the same time here the technicality they are using here sounds completely absurd.

How do we maintain technical integrity of the law while taking into account exceptional cases such as this?

projektfu
0 replies
2h39m

There are a lot of reasons as to why this use of the fine print is unconscionable.

1. There was no consideration in exchange for signing the document. Disney offered a gift and Piccolo effectively chose to return it at the end.

2. The period over which the contract applies would implicitly apply to the period of availability and use of the services.

The following were mentioned in the case:

3. The terms of service were not directly included in the contract

4. The contract was not explicitly signed

5. The terms of use related to the Disney Springs area conflict with and supersede the terms in the Disney+ contract

However, I think the fine print has gotten out of hand generally. We need to have basically standard-form contracts for these things and explicit, aware, negotiated signature required for opting out of the standard terms. The problem is the scale. When a thing costs a nominal amount but requires a contract, and the negotiation of the contract is not worth the time or money for either seller or buyer, then it ought to be agreeable to both in the general case and not have any surprises. Reading through terms of service for just about anything these days makes you really wonder what you might be agreeing to. If you sign up for your smart dryer's service, are you losing the right to seek damages in court if your house burns down? The contract is unlikely to be more than a link with a button above it, or a tiny window in which you can scroll through hundreds of lines of text. What if there's an "agree to defend" clause in there and your smart dryer becomes part of a botnet that steals a bunch of money? Many of these uses would be thrown out for being unconscionable, but it just takes one judge to agree.

makeitdouble
0 replies
6h55m

It would mean fine prints need to be reasonable, and what does "reasonable" mean will be decided by a judge when needed.

TillE
2 replies
13h53m

The alleged point of arbitration clauses is to ease the burden on the courts, which is rather contradicted when lawyers choose to waste a judge's time with dumb arguments like this.

tpmoney
0 replies
1h32m

From the plaintiff's response to this motion linked elsewhere, I'm thinking that Disney is somewhat compelled to file this motion in order to have any shot at arbitration being relevant at all. Their initial response to the lawsuit (included in the appendix of that plaintiff's response) is a pretty stock "we don't think we have liability here, it's on the restaurant" response. But the plaintiff response notes an aspect of law where a party willingly participating in a lawsuit without asserting their right to arbitration early is presumed to be waiving that right. So it sounds like Disney must produce some argument early in the proceedings that this should be removed to arbitration in order to preserve that possibility assuming that it is something that would be covered by the arbitration agreements.

I'm not sure I buy how they connect their agreements specifically to transactions in this publicly accessible mall, but it seems like if they didn't make the attempt at all, they couldn't later make the attempt if later in the court process something came to light that indicated this should have been handled with arbitration.

Log_out_
0 replies
13h6m

The point of arbitration is to errode the rule of law and attack the state. Surplanting it with "company law" which is not supervised/vetoed indirectly by democratic voting. All other stated goals are lies, often ironically co-evolving to mimic the states already existing more efficient structures.

simpaticoder
1 replies
11h54m

Anyone doing business with Disney should cancel their D+ subscription and pay an attorney to properly notify Disney Corp. that the terms of The Agreement no longer apply. Indeed, this step should be taken by sub-contractors, anyone visiting the parks, anyone who could conceivably have contact with the parks, the movie studios, the corporate HQ, any suppliers or subcontractors, or anyone working for any of the above. This move is abhorrent, and if the judge buys it, it is dystopian.

LeonB
0 replies
11h18m

Disney headquarters should be picketed for this, large scale boycotts etc are the only fair response.

In a sane world, companies who sell products to consumers should be terrified of ever being caught doing something as disgusting as this.

But our actual standards are far lower than we would like to admit.

keernan
1 replies
13h25m

I predict we will soon learn that the attorney who filed the motion "on behalf of Disney" was hired by an insurance company providing bodily injury insurance coverage for the restaurant; and that Disney had no knowledge of the motion or its legal argument; and that Disney disagrees with the purported legal position taken.

By way of background: I am a retired trial attorney and spent 40 years litigating cases involving insurance.

ggm
0 replies
11h3m

I would imagine Disney as a corporate consumer of goods and services would also realise it too was at risk of inadvertently agreeing to "egregious" terms if this went ahead: they would not want to incur the cost of even finer grained legals on things they sign to.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Gander. Or in more modern parlance "no, not like that"

jimt1234
1 replies
2h17m

Sort-related question: Can restaurants refuse to serve someone who mentions severe dietary restrictions? Honestly, if I owned a restaurant, that's where I would lean because the risk is too high. If one of the cooks accidentally includes the wrong ingredient or the servers get the dishes mixed up, someone could die, as happened in this case. I know there's requirements to accommodate people with certain physical disabilities - wheelchairs, sight/hearing-impaired, stuff like that. But I've never heard of a requirement to accommodate all dietary needs.

amerkhalid
0 replies
2h12m

I think that would be fine, I have seen at some Pakistani/Indian restaurants where they apologized and said could not remove the ingredients or prevent cross contamination.

gorgoiler
1 replies
13h16m

Is it normal to describe the claimant in a wrongful death lawsuit as a “victim”? I would have said the victim was the person who died.

It makes this seem even more vexatious as Disney want to have the case dismissed because it was the deceased’s husband who signed up for a free trial of Disney+.

upon_drumhead
0 replies
12h59m

There can be more than one victim. In this case, the claimant suffered a loss of the person who died, which is impossible to quantify, but makes them a victim as well.

ghusto
1 replies
2h57m

Putting aside the obvious flaw in the argument, a person died. Surely there are some kind of criminal charges that can be brought against Disney?

tpmoney
0 replies
1h41m

Not every death is the result of criminal action. At best, you might find some argument for criminally negligent behavior, but that's going to probably be a pretty big reach for the landlord of a 3rd party restaurant in a mall. Criminal negligence usually requires the accused to have engaged in conduct that they knew (or reasonably should have known) would put someone in danger.

Even if you say that republishing the 3rd party's menu or even collaborating on that menu extends the civil liability to Disney, I'm having a hard time imagining any argument that those actions could be reasonably known to endanger someone without some evidence that the restaurant had no allergen policies or procedures and that Disney knew that and still placed wording to imply they did.

lamontcg
0 replies
12h20m

It is unbelievable that we put up with this stupid shit, and it isn't just illegal.

dredmorbius
1 replies
53m

Coverage elsewhere, alphabetical by source:

From the BBC: "Disney+ terms prevent allergy death lawsuit, Disney says" <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go>

From CNN: "Disney wants wrongful death suit dismissed because widower signed up for Disney+" <https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful...>

From the Guardian: "Disney claims streaming arbitration clause binding in resort wrongful death suit" <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disn...>

From NPR: "Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because plaintiff had Disney+" <https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful...>

From the NY Post: "Disney wants allergy death suit tossed because of widower's Disney+ subscription" <https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-d...>

From the Telegraph: "Disney World: Cannot sue over wife's death at park as he signed up for Disney+" <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-di...>

(I'm editing this comment to add additional sources as they're submitted to HN and flagged as dupes...)

yieldcrv
0 replies
43m

People skim an in person contract, “I just want to make sure I’m not signing my soul away! haha”

But when your spouse clicks agree on the Playstation trial 3 years prior, its all for nothing

tyre
0 replies
13h56m

imagine coming up with this idea, pitching it, and then going through with it

i can imagine as a lawyer thinking of this jokingly, but to actually go through with it is wild

ssijak
0 replies
12h13m

This article made me so angry. Hey she did not sign a contract with the devil but an online free trial for unrelated service 10 years ago.

scarby2
0 replies
13h11m

This is ridiculous but what I can't work out is why they don't just (correctly) claim that they neither own nor operate the restaurant. It would be absurd to hold a landlord responsible for the actions of their tenant.

red_admiral
0 replies
8h59m

Can T&C really exclude liability in case of a death? (Unless the deceased was accused of negligence or similar.) And would an arbitration clause be binding on the executors of a will, considering the person who accepted the terms is no longer alive?

pokstad
0 replies
12h36m

So if my child is run over to death by a Disney vehicle, I can’t sue them in court because I watch Bluey?

pessimizer
0 replies
2h28m

I don't understand the difference between forced arbitration and sharia law. I don't think the courts do, either, seeing as they've ordered raped/stalked women and labor-trafficked children into "spiritual arbitration" through the Church of Scientology.

In a future so near as to have happened a few years ago, monopolies and near-monopolies can force people who use their services to submit to arbitrary private legal codes and systems of judgement. It's almost like giving up your citizenship. It's like how the US government doesn't have to follow the law in Guantanamo, except Guantanamo is Walgreens, or Amazon.

edit: I just had a 10-second nightmare where giving Walgreens my phone number and hitting "I accept" on the screen at the checkout, in order to get the sale price, somehow prevents me from suing my doctor for malpractice after a horrible medical accident. I thought I was just selling my privacy, but I was actually selling my rights as a US citizen.

notimetorelax
0 replies
10h40m

Given the assurances by the chef and the waiter I don't understand how this is not a manslaughter or gross negligence charge? This whole situation is a nightmare for someone with strong allergies.

natroniks
0 replies
4h52m

Reminds me of the South Park episode where agreeing to Apple's Terms and Conditions gives Steve Jobs the right to perform experimental surgery on you (inspired by the B horror flick Human Centipede). Just found the episode title, "HumancentiPad" S15 E1 from 2011

mxfh
0 replies
9h20m

Oh that's why Spotify's Healthcare Provider division has so competitive pricing.

moandcompany
0 replies
11h31m

(I am not a lawyer, not familiar with Florida state law, and this is not legal advice nor a legal opinion)

It is possible that Disney's lawyers expect their motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit from the Florida trial court and compel arbitration to fail, but are (1) attempting to take the shot and see if the judge agrees, which is a win for them, and (2) may be attempting to take advantage of the rules of procedure where even if their motion is denied, Disney can benefit. There is little for them to lose by trying.

First, as others have commented, even if Disney's arguments fail, the only real consequences are born by the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources. Civil trials like this are wars of attrition between parties with vastly asymmetric resources.

Second, under the rules of civil procedure in many states, which may be the case under Florida law, a denied motion to compel arbitration can be appealed and while that appeal is pending, the case would typically be "stayed" (i.e. paused). Resolution of the appeal can take several years, again applying consequences to the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources, even if the appeal fails.

Because of the above, US corporate defendants have been observed to incorporate motions to compel arbitration into their strategies, even when no arbitration agreement, whatsoever, existed. Even in such a situation, when their motion to compel arbitration is denied, the trial court case is stayed (i.e. frozen) for several years while the denied motion to compel arbitration is pending appeal.

In California, this became such a problem for both regular plaintiffs and the state's Attorney General, that the state legislature passed a law to change the rules of civil procedure, via SB365 (2023), which took effect this year on January 1, 2024. Under current California law, trial court cases are no longer automatically stayed while a denied motion to compel arbitration are pending appeal.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Meanwhile, under US Federal Law (from a Supreme Court ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - 2023), when a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is denied, the trial court case is automatically stayed.

lolc
0 replies
8h5m

One more notch for the adjective "disney" to mean "will attempt anything to serve own interests, morally bankrupt".

kstenerud
0 replies
13h37m

Now THAT is some impressive chutzpah!

I wonder if it's possible to penalize the lawyers for even coming up with this argument?

jostmey
0 replies
6h40m

I wonder if arbitration is not the point. The goal might be to slow down the court system, forcing the court to pause and think about every little thing, such as arbitration, even if the court will never side with Disney on this issue

darajava
0 replies
7h0m

I’ve cancelled my Disney+ subscription.

RecycledEle
0 replies
8h2m

Is this a chance to strike down click-wrap TOS once and for all?

Peaches4Rent
0 replies
2h28m

I don't normally comment, but I think I just had a meltdown. I'm just in disbelief that this can work and a judge will allow it.