isn't it stunningly obvious how bad the PR on this is? not just because it's evil, but because if the argument succeeds Disney creates a massive incentive never to engage with any of their products. surely paying out this guy—or relying on the much stronger case of "we don't actually run the restaurant and so are not loable"—would be far less expensive than losing all those sales
- she/her
enthusiast enthusiast
offsite reposts: @nex3-reposts
clips & pics: @nex3-moments
Cohost utilities:
- Image grid generator
- Backloggd formatter
- Letterboxd formatter
- Timeline deduplicator
- Syntax highlighter
header photo by me
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @nex3's post:
I imagine at this point that Disney feels comfortable enough in their media monopoly that they don't really have to care too hard about PR
(whether that's actually the case is a different story)
It feels more plausible to me that a lawyer(s) saw it as a potential angle to take and went for it without consulting anyone who would have seen it as a disaster. like i don't think this was a take that the whole company was ready to get behind
Comically evil
(It also sounds like there isn't a precedent for the scope of arbitration clauses in user agreements which I hope lawmakers at least realize how stupid this is)
i've heard it said that one of their goals is to run up legal costs for the plaintiff cause nobody's ever even had to defend against an argument this stupid before, so it prolongs the case.
the other thing is that, if they somehow succeeded, they'd be in a brilliant spot to absolutely fuck over all 150(?) million disney plus users. so i guess thats a thing
Pinned Tags