• 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.