|
|
|
|
|
|
by gruez
488 days ago
|
|
|
>Remember when Disney tried to get out of a wrongful death lawsuit by citing some agreement the family of the victim accepted for a Disney+ trial years before? [0] Well you're describing the same principle. Consent should be granular. That case was wildly mischaracterized. The restaurant that allegedly caused the wrongly death was not owned or operated by Disney, but Disney was dragged into the lawsuit anyways on the basis that they listed the restaurant on their website. Disney retorted that if they could be on the hook for a wrongful death under such tenuous circumstances, that they should be let off the hook on the basis of the tenuous waiver the plaintiff signed years before. |
|
|
They've since backtracked on that retort though and accepted the court process[0].
Although their first response was nothing to do with arbitration[1]. Their lawyers are flip-floppers.
[0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/disn...
[1] "Disney made no mention of arbitration, instead arguing it was not liable because it has no control over Raglan’s operations or management and merely serves as its landlord."