The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”
After several days and countless news stories surrounding Disney’s bid to use Disney+ terms to shield itself from a lawsuit tied to Disney World, the Hollywood giant later backtracked and dropped the legal claim, allowing the matter to proceed in court instead of through arbitration.
Yep.
It’s the same “But you agreed to a totally unrelated umbrella ToS that waived your right to sue our parent company and all of its subsidiaries” that Disney was using when trying to settle a wrongful death lawsuit because the victim had signed up to a Disney+ trial and clicked “I agree” on its ToS.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224277/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-waiving-arbitration
This does not seem like it could or should be legal.
It really shouldn’t be. I was hoping Disney wan’t going to back down so it could be dealt with in court (and ideally struck down). As it stands, it’s still untested, legally, since Disney agreed to drop their fight. I’m almost positive that’s why Disney backed down so that they could keep that umbrella binding arbitration clause and still hopefully use it later.
Hopefully the couple here is able to get legal help in suing and the umbrella binding arbitration clause they signed in an unrelated ToS can be struck down. That would very likely nullify Disney’s as well.
If it was a different SCOTUS, I’d say take it all the way. It’s a crap shoot right now though.