Streaming Services TOS: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid....

JLW

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2012
14,966
15,644
2,405
Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.

However, Disney argues its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.



*********************************************************************************

What Disney is saying here is that when you sign up for their streaming service, you agree to arbitrate all your disputes with Disney whenever and wherever they may occur. So, in this care, an individual was harmed eating at a Disney theme park but because this person signed up for a trial Disney account he, or rather his estate, was bound by the arbitration provision effectively eviscerating all the individual's and estate's rights.

Think about that. All streaming services have the same or similar provisions. Since these streaming services are owned by giant conglomerates, the consequences could be severe. For instance, if you are injured by a Comcast truck, but you are an Xfinity subscriber, you may have waived your rights to a jury trial.

I doubt Disney will prevail, but who knows? If they do, the consequences will be huge.
 
Last edited:
Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.

However, Disney argues its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.



*********************************************************************************

What Disney is saying here is that when you sign up for their streaming service, you agree to arbitrate all your disputes with Disney whenever and wherever they may occur. So, in this care, an individual was harmed eating at a Disney theme park but because this person signed up for a free trial Disney services he, or rather his estate, was bound by the arbitration provision eviscerating all the individual's and estate's rights.

Think about that. All streaming services have the same or similar provisions. Since these streaming services are owned by giant conglomerates, if may be you are injured by a Comcast trust, but you have Xfinity, you may have waived your rights to a jury trial.

I doubt Disney will prevail, but who knows? A conservative court could rule for these large corporate interests.


You mean the same Disney that owns ABC, the far-left corporation and the only one Harris has agreed to debate on?

Enjoy your corporatism comrade.

RIP to this mans wife and the manner in which he has been treated.
 
You mean the same Disney that owns ABC, the far-left corporation and the only one Harris has agreed to debate on?

Enjoy your corporatism comrade.

RIP to this mans wife and the manner in which he has been treated.
With all due respect, your comment is ludicrous. Try again.

Corporatism and comrade are a contradiction in terms.

This thread is about the legal theory behind Disney's defense and its ramifications.
 
Last edited:
I'm no fan of Disney but it seems to me the responsibility lies with a person who is so allergic to something as common as dairy products that it could kill her.
 
I'm no fan of Disney but it seems to me the responsibility lies with a person who is so allergic to something as common as dairy products that it could kill her.
This case goes beyond Disney. It is the legal theory behind it all that is very troubling.
 
Just because someone argues something in court doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
 
Just because someone argues something in court doesn't mean it will hold up in court.
Agreed. It will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court because Disney thinks it may win there.
 
Last edited:
Just because someone argues something in court doesn't mean it will hold up in court.

I say that Disney should win since they are a strong supporter of the Democrats. In fact, why have a court case? They should just disregard the summons, it is beneath them.
 
I say that Disney should win since they are a strong supporter of the Democrats. In fact, why have a court case? They should just disregard the summons, it is beneath them.
Stop thinking that this is political. It has nothing to do with Democrats. It is all about arbitration provisions which by the way is highly favored by large conservative corporate interests.
 
Last edited:
Stop thinking that this is political. It has nothing to do with Democrats. It is all about arbitration provision which by the way is highly favored by large conservative corporate interests.

Disney is about as far away from a conservative corporation as you will find.
 
Disney is about as far away from a conservative corporation as you will find.
You are really having a difficult time grasping the concepts here. Maybe take some time and think about it for while.
 
Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.

However, Disney argues its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.



*********************************************************************************

What Disney is saying here is that when you sign up for their streaming service, you agree to arbitrate all your disputes with Disney whenever and wherever they may occur. So, in this care, an individual was harmed eating at a Disney theme park but because this person signed up for a trial Disney account he, or rather his estate, was bound by the arbitration provision effectively eviscerating all the individual's and estate's rights.

Think about that. All streaming services have the same or similar provisions. Since these streaming services are owned by giant conglomerates, the consequences could be severe. For instance, if you are injured by a Comcast truck, but you are an Xfinity subscriber, you may have waived your rights to a jury trial.

I doubt Disney will prevail, but who knows? If they do, the consequences will be huge.

That's fucking ridiculous (a legal term)
 
You are really having a difficult time grasping the concepts here. Maybe take some time and think about it for while.

Well tell me what corporation is "conservative" that will take advantage of this policy?

An oil company? A big financial firm? Who?

This is a very specific circumstance. I can't think of any other company that has an online service and also a theme park. Maybe McD restaurant if you download their app? I don't know.
 
With all due respect, your comment is ludicrous. Try again.

Corporatism and comrade are a contradiction in terms.

This thread is about the legal theory behind Disney's defense and its ramifications.

He is a fucking moron that ties anything and everything to Trump or those he sees as Trump's enemy, I am about to put his stupid ass on ignore
 

Forum List

Back
Top