A Boring Dystopia

9747 readers

280 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

givesomefucks@lemmy.world

180

Disney Seeking Dismissal of Raglan Road Death Lawsuit Because Victim Was Disney+ Subscriber (wdwnt.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tangsuan had a severe dairy and nut allergy and informed the waitstaff at the restaurant of her dietary needs, and was “unequivocally assured” they could be accommodated. She ordered and ate the “Sure I’m Frittered” vegetarian broccoli and corn fritters, the “Scallop Forest” sea scallops appetizer, the “This Shepherd Went Vegan” entree, and a side of onion rings.

After their meal, Piccolo returned to their hotel room, and Tangsuan and her mother-in-law continued to shop at Disney Springs. later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood, self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died.

In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think the reason that they're fighting it so hard is to defend arbitration clauses while the courts are still conservitive controlled. If they got sued in court despite the arbitration clause then that sets president to throw out those clauses. If they can get the courts to uphold the clause then that actually gives arbitration clauses some teeth. But if they're going to do that then the need to do it now while there is still any chance of it being ruled in their favor and they have the money to drag this thing all the way up to the corrupt supreme court if they need to.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can't see any way that they win this case on the merits of the argument.

But if I'm wrong and they win, a whole lot of lawsuits are gonna disappear. That's a terrible precedent to set.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Current SCOTUS are something of terrible prescident afficionados.