Chat is this real

Arbitration is never the right answer. Fix the judicial system, don’t privatize it.

Otherwise, no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.

Demonstrably false. In a public healthcare system it is also possible to have publicly funded patient injury compensation systems. Source: Live in Norway and we have both.

no doctor would ever touch any patient ever again.

My country has heavy immunity for doctors. I think we can't sue them, like it's automatically a regional arbitration hearing, and at no point can one get "pain and suffering" but only "recoup of costs to fix as much as possible" kind of stuff.

So if the doc removes the wrong foot, he'll lose his job, and you'll get a pegleg or something like that.

Hmm. Just reading that makes me think the rate of vindictive doctor slayings is too low for that to be true.

I would like to see whether and how a case of Negligence should work with the boilerplate arbitration clauses that they're abusing.

Would Disney then roll over and sue the everliving out of the server as a scapegoat?

Your tattoo example doesn't make sense to me. The tattoo shop could require an agreement limiting liability without denying access to the courts.

Are you saying that it's reasonable to be allowed to waive your right to access the legal system when getting a tattoo but not when accessing streaming services?

It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.

Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn't happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?

It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.

Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it's reasonable.

Whatever scenatio you think of, there's always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it's far-fetched, but not impossible.

However there's at least one thing that's never reasonable, and that's arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can't be amended after it's made. It can't be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.

Arbitration doesn't allow complaint. The judgement is final.

Which is fucking ridiculous.

Let's return to your two claims of unreasonability:

It's perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.

It's not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.

There's nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.

What isn't fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.

To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.

Google this hash info: EF4211584F37CA70A4B1A2E47E7E833C79ABACBA

Yes and Disney will get very mad 😠😠

Think of the shareholders!!

Not the worse trade off. As long as we aren’t including Season 3.

Only the ones that are written for and protected by corporations. Everything else is the wild Wild West.

Most Americans would be offended by your comment, and that’s why we don’t have nice things. We’re very, and I can not stress this enough, VERY stupid.

It's the law that the businesses get to screw you.

Oh yeah and every infant is assigned an assault weapon at birth.

It's certainly going to cause a reaction.

A mall owned and operated by Disney, with Disney branding everywhere, and store names heavily influenced by Disney properties, like "BB Wolf's Sausage Co.", and where "Guest Services" is managed by Disney, and the property rules are Disneyworld's property rules.

The way these big firms work is they make a bunch of almost contradictory arguments and you have to show they're all false in order to win the law suit.

So it'll look like:

1. I didn't do it.
2. Even if I did do it you can't prove it was me.
3. Even if you can prove it was me I wouldn't be liable.
4. Even if I was liable this has to be settled by arbitration.

So you have to get through arguments 4 and 3 first, to show that it's worth the court trying to find out what happened. Then they'll fight you tooth and nail on points 1 and 2 later.

No, it isn't. It's saying, look, we had nothing to do with this because it was outside of our reasonable control, and even if we were somehow in control of this independent entity, this is the wrong venue because they agreed to this arbitration clause.

Moreover, per another article on NPR, "Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is "immaterial."" In other words, he agreed to arbitration when he bought the ticket to Disney World, and it was while at the park, at an independent restaurant, that Ms. Tangsuan had a fatal allergic reaction.

Is that arbitration agreement reasonable? Personally, I lean towards no, but that's mostly because arbitration is almost always in favor of the corporation. If it was truly a neutral process? Then yeah, I'd mostly support it, because it's pretty easy for a defendant like Disney to bury any single plaintiff. (OTOH, it makes class action suits much harder.) Is it even valid, since it's the estate that's suing Disney, rather than her husband, and the estate didn't exist when the tickets were bought and so couldn't have agreed to the terms? Hard to say.

The problem is just going to court and saying "we have nothing to do with it" is both expensive and can end up with them going to trial. If they believe they have nothing to do with the incident, this is their easiest route.

Not trying to defend a big corp like Disney (they have plenty of money and can easily cover it), but I was just involved in a suite brought against me and in the end even though it would have been an "easy win" for us, it still would have cost us more money to fight it out in court than it was to just settle. And that's assuming the trial went our way which is never a guarantee.

It also sends a message that if you ever use a Disney product then they'll use that as an excuse to deny you your legal rights.

You probably think you're clever but being pedantic is just being insufferable about stuff everyone else understood from context. That doesn't make you clever, that just shows everyone that you need to be seen as clever.

You're getting downvotes, but I for one applaud your manic pedantry!

You know how much Disney is worth or their annual profit?

Even something like 10 millions is just cost of business or a rounding error to Disney.

I dunno, it depends on how many supreme court justices disney can afford I guess.

not enforceable

I mean sure, but writing agreements that contradict the law, at least in some of the more egregious cases, should really be actively punishable.

Those are more to scare people and discourage them from suing the company.

And this is why.

Yea, i am not so amused by the scaring people part. That is my problem here.

Disney winning sets a precedent that will ultimately lead to vigilante justice by necessity.

If Disney wins, then our “justice” system does not work and cannot be trusted, thus leading people to doing what they need to just to survive when every company starts using that clause to prevent us from holding them responsible for anything at all.

And if that's the case, I guess I need to dig out my mask and cape, and get back to work as a crime fighter.

I was being general, didn't write that i suppose. I am also refereing to companies trying to void warranties for no legal reason etc. There's plenty of contradictory agreements out there.

Edit: Typo

Not everyone has funds for a lawyer or time to get it done. Sueing someone in this country is complicated and expensive

Well, if they don't do it now it sets a precedent that you can sue them. They don't want that happening.

Lets focus our contempt in the correct direction. You have no idea if the wait staff even interacts with the kitchen let alone if they were trained properly, or trained wrong.

Dunno how it is there but where I live you can't be charged for a legitimate fuck up at work like that. Only if it was malicious

Or shorting it, when I expect it to go down in price, thereby getting more money out of them.

Probably not, big sums are a US thing, and the familly is UK. My point is they're doing this to try precedence.

Still it's more recent and I said myself that it doesn't make it better

My only point was that it's more recent than years ago. And I agree that it doesn't change anything

I need context This is intriguing.

Let's go

Djeezis... Fucking... Christ...

I'm ancient apparently. Referring to chat always comes to my head as livestreaming on twitch.