It now says the case “warrants a sensitive approach.”

Disney tried to force the case into arbitration by citing the agreement on the widower’s Disney Plus trial account.

Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial.

“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” chairman of Disney experiences Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

  • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    40·
    3 months ago

    An umbrella arbitration clause like this, if it were argued at court, surely would only be held up for cases related to Disney+. At least one would hope. Having such an agreement cover entirely separate arms of a company is ridiculous.

    • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
      601·
      3 months ago

      Arbitration contracts, especially in click-through licenses, are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

      • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
        34·
        3 months ago

        Arbitration contracts especially in click-through licenses are always bullshit and should be universally thrown out.

        There should be no reason why a corporation ahould be able to avoid the justice system for any reason.

        • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
          14·
          3 months ago

          I could see very specific cases where arbitration makes sense with a very well defined scope. “Parties agree that disputes over widget quality related to this agreement are to be adjudicated by the Widget Quality Counsel”. The courts are not always the best arbiters for every dispute.

          However, what we have now is every corporation finding ways to slide arbitration clauses of global scope into every transaction. That is always bullshit.

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            3 months ago

            If you give an inch, they take a mile. No forced arbitration clauses, anywhere, ever, period.

      • TipRing@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        3 months ago

        All unilateral contracts where one side holds all the cards and can arbitrarily dictate or even alter previously agreed to terms should be held to the strictest standards. This includes employment agreements, terms of service, license agreements and so on.

        Contracts between equals can be more permissive.

        • Tinidril@midwest.socialEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          Agreed. It’s pretty telling that none of these corporations would accept an open ended arbitration clause in their dealings with any other corporation.