Hacker News Reader

Comment by fortran77 | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

If this argument actually works, then laws need serious change

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.

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

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.

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

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

How can trial terms be enforced in perpetuity!?

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

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).

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...

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.

That's incorrect, the restaurant is at Disney Springs which is a mall outside Disney's parks and doesn't require tickets. [0][1]

[0]https://touringplans.com/blog/disney-in-a-minute-what-is-dis... [1]https://www.disneysprings.com/dining/

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...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com