• perishthethought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’d be really curious to hear if the court accepts Disney’s argument. (F*** them if they do)

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s Florida so it wouldn’t surprise me. However there are multiple ways it which it shouldn’t. Did Disney have unequal bargaining, was there consideration and acceptance, is it against the public interest and public policy, does the arbitration clause create undue burden… All these things should be against Disney. But… The Supreme Court even when it didn’t lean Republicunt has been pro-arbitration and anti consumer.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        None of that should even matter.

        Disney is claiming the one line in the terms and conditions of a free trial of Disney+ years ago means the consumer must abide by those terms in perpetuity for anything Disney related. Even things completely unrelated to Disney+.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes a lot of conservative higher courts and Supreme Court have determined that arbitration agreements don’t expire and last for eternity. Read various court cases on them. It is truly sick that the higher courts have ruled this way. It shouldn’t matter but in many cases it does matter.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            My point is the agreement was for an entirely unrelated product. A restaurant is in no way associated with the Disney+ streaming service. No one would expect the terms and conditions from a streaming service to apply to a sit down restaurant.

            I’d even say that while they’re both under the Disney brand, they almost certainly are separate companies, further differentiating their products.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              I know and agree. What I’m saying is that the courts and especially conservative justices don’t care. Should Disney be sanctioned for this bad faith attempt? Absolutely! But will Disney be? Probably not. Is it possible Disney’s motion to compel or dismiss will be granted. It is definitely possible.