US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms - eviltoast

This case is quite similar with Disney+ case.

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

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Obviously I can’t possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.

      And that DOES make sense.

      • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Right, but if they’re not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn’t fall under their tos, because they don’t own it.

        • ZMonster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The restaurant isn’t suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

          When you are ready to move on, go for it.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            So they’re doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.