978
Capiruleism (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Disney knows that part of the contract is unenforceable

All a court has to do is agree that the claim must go to arbitration. Then the private Disney arbiter can squash the claim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The part of the contract that is obviously unenforceable is the idea that signing up for a Disney+ trial a year ago forces you into binding arbitration over an issue at a Disney theme park today.

    Disney really shot themselves in the foot by even trying to claim this. They have a much, much stronger claim (morally still abhorrent, and legally still far from certain, but much better) with the fact that he had signed up for a Disney app in connection to the theme park itself. If they had stuck to only that claim they’d have an equal chance of legal success, and not gotten nearly as much bad press.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    The part of the contract that is obviously unenforceable is the idea that signing up for a Disney+ trial a year ago forces you into binding arbitration over an issue at a Disney theme park today.

    That's very easily enforceable. It's bad. But there's no difficulty actually imposing the rule.

    Disney really shot themselves in the foot by even trying to claim this.

    They have oodles of money and a highly favorable court composition to argue in. Forcing anyone who has every touched a Disney property into binding arbitration would be an enormous coup for their legal team. Meanwhile, they aren't going to lose any money on this gambit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent