Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions

Line 12:

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 when the food served by a restaurant on their premises killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html</ref>

===Legal Arguments===

Line 25:

Line 27:

==Procedural Timeline==

A concerning aspect of Disney's attempt was that they first participated in discovery & filed an Answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense; only later trying to use the EULA to avoid litigation. As noted in the August 2nd Response: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

A concerning aspect of Disney's attempt was that they first participated in discovery and filed an Answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense; only later trying to use the EULA to avoid litigation. As noted in the August 2nd Response: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

==Key Legal Issues Around Consumer Rights==

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 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 when the food served by a restaurant on their premises killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related to the streaming service.
+Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html</ref>
 ===Legal Arguments===
@@ Line 25: / Line 27: @@
 ==Procedural Timeline==
-A concerning aspect of Disney's attempt was that they first participated in discovery &  filed an Answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense; only later trying to use the EULA to avoid litigation. As noted in the August 2nd Response: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>
+A concerning aspect of Disney's attempt was that they first participated in discovery and filed an Answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense; only later trying to use the EULA to avoid litigation. As noted in the August 2nd Response: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>
 ==Key Legal Issues Around Consumer Rights==