EULA roofie: Difference between revisions

.hecko (talk | contribs)
Resources: tosback is dead but used to redirect to opentermsarchive, replacing link according; also fixing em dashesly
Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
Added Disney's wrongful death lawsuit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
"EULA roofie" describes the practice of hiding contentious terms within an [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA). The term applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase. The term was coined by consumer rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]]<sup>[source?]</sup>.
'''EULA roofie''' describes the practice of hiding contentious terms within an [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA). The term applies to situations where such terms, if made clear upfront, might cause a customer to second-guess their purchase. The term was coined by consumer rights advocate [[wikipedia:Louis_Rossmann|Louis Rossmann]]<sup>[source?]</sup>.


This term highlights the unethical business practice of "manufacturing consent" for terms which a reasonable and informed customer might reject. It also emphasizes the erosion of informed consent through shaming and conformity.
This term highlights the unethical business practice of "manufacturing consent" for terms which a reasonable and informed customer might reject. It also emphasizes the erosion of informed consent through shaming and conformity.
Line 39: Line 39:


A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.  
A consumer has to read the complete Privacy Policy (see attached images below) to learn that LG collects their personal data and shares it with their advertising partners. Futhermore, this Privacy Policy is only shown to the customer once they have bought the LG product.  
=== Disney's Wrongful Death Lawsuit ===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=02 Aug 2024 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>.
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:
# The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]
# Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023
This represented a classic example of a EULA roofie, where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.
Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>


==Consumer Impact==
==Consumer Impact==