Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
nex

@mcc There's a *huge* difference between “some lawyer wrote this” and “this is legal”. Terms of use, license agreements, etc. contain loads of bullshit that isn't actually legally enforceable. Which parts are and aren't valid is interesting to law nerds, but the salient point here isn't whether Disney can get away with murder if they tricked some sucker into saying some magic words. (1/2)

4 comments
nex

Rather, it's that Disney are always ready to send a horde of well-funded lawyers after some poor civilian who lost their spouse due to negligent homicide.

If you don't have sufficient resources, no degree of being right can stop them from grinding you down.

This is exactly on brand for early 80s Disney. It's just that a lot of people romanticise 80s Disney because, back then, they were naive idiots (a.k.a. children). (2/2)

Nick Astley

@nex @mcc You're right, it's up to the courts to affirm or deny the argument

And since judges are so trustworthy these days I'm sure everything will turn out fine

Sally Strange

@pleaseclap @nex @mcc sooo helpful to be reminded that this is fine

Mike "piñata economy" Sims

@nex @mcc The problem is, arbitration clauses are enforceable. Like if this victim sat down to their last dinner and signed a contract saying any problems with dinner would be arbitrated not judged, then this would absolutely 100% be enforceable under US law.

It's a bit sketchy saying a streaming contract from years prior applies, but in general, arbitration requirements are 100% enforceable. This shouldn't be true but is.

Go Up