This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

You press ‘Agree’, you lost the right to sue the company.

  • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    39 months ago

    Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed

    I get we hate Disney but spreading misinformation is never cool.

    1. It was a move to move it to arbitration not to dismiss the lawsuit.

    2. Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant, so any suit mentioning them is a pointless endeavour put forth by a money grubbing lawyer profiting from a family’s grief.

    • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      119 months ago

      Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant,

      Then they should have argued that instead of “you can’t sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago.”

    • @irish_link@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      99 months ago
      1. Moving to arbitration where the party making the agreement picks the arbiter, is close to being dismissed because there is about a 10% chance of winning.

      2. The restaurant is in Disney Springs. Correct that its not Disney but they still have a stake in the restaurant.

      Your misinformation is just as bad.

      • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago
        1. The restaurant is in Disney Springs. Correct that its not Disney but they still have a stake in the restaurant.

        You are trying so god damn hard to keep yourself upset about this. On the one hand I respect it, on the other I think you’re a cunt.

        • @irish_link@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          39 months ago

          Wow, no reason for name calling. I was just calling out how you were doing a similar injustice to the truth. But okay, I am a cunt for disagreeing with your assessment.

          I’m not arguing that Disney should be held liable just that your generalization was wrong. If you are going to argue points of view on the internet and revert to name calling all I have to say is go to bed you child.

          In other news, like the article that spurred this thread corporations using ToS to scapegoat things is wrong.

    • @Malek061@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?

      • @GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts

        This wasn’t one of Disney’s restaurants though. They owned the land it was on but had no say over management.

        • @Malek061@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          69 months ago

          There is no way the disney brand would allow complete control over a sub contractor. Disney has final say in anything inside those gates.

            • @Malek061@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              What bullshit? Disney, has an image to protect and they absolutely exert control over their sub contractor vendors.

          • Konala Koala
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            More like Disney has final say in anything inside these gates that appear to be guarded by Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.

    • @ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      The amount of brain worm from this whole thing is amazing to me. This is on the level of trumper shit at this point. Seeing so many people incapable of acknowledging that they misunderstood something is just crazy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know you’re a good person for being patient with so many boobs.

      • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        I’m not saying Disney should be held liable, but the fact remains that the defense they initially went with was “You used an unrelated service for a week several years ago so you can’t sue us” instead of something credible and relevant.

        • @ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          19 months ago

          No, the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with. And the “unrelated service” that they used (on actually several occasions according to Disney’s motion) contained a boilerplate arbitration agreements that literally every corporation under the sun uses. Shady as shit? Absolutely. Both parties are being shady as shit. The lawsuit only included Disney because there was never going to be a big payday without them. Nothing about the plaintiff or Disney is either credible or relevant.

          • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with

            Then Disney should have argued that instead of something shady as shit.