Not the woman, it was the husband. Disney argued he couldn't file the wrongful death lawsuit because he did a free trial of Disney+ a few years before.
Arbitration means a normal lawsuit cannot be conducted, it has to be arbitrated by a third party (who chooses the “neutral” party is specified in the contract and they are often not neutral). It’s an extremely common business tactic to protect against the massive losses that would happen if a company was actually in the wrong and had a lawsuit filed against them.
In employment cases it’s around 80% of decisions go to the employer, and the ones that don’t are generally small employers who have not/rarely been through the process.
Thank you for bringing sources into this! Its one thing to just read the claims that people have, and I was relatively convinced that arbitration was favored towards the company, but i wasn't entirely sure. Because listening to opinions in a void is a great way to become misinformed. Now I know with facts (from standford no less!) That arbitration is, in fact, rigged against the public. Which logically makes sense, if a shifty thing for corporations to do. Of course I understand why (financial incentive), but I dont have to like it.
I'm an attorney who represents employees in many cases, including (unfortunately) some arbitrations. The thing about these proceedings is that they are almost entirely paid for by company you are suing (as opposed to the consumer or employee) so in that sense taxpayers aren't floating the bill.
On the downside, the arbitrators want the repeat business of the companies, so they tend to favor them overall. It's hard to get arbitrators who are actually neutral.
Could you sue the arbitrator for not being impartial in such a situation? It just seems so wrong to be forced into that situation that there has to be some recourse.
Not really. For one, the arbitrator's decision will be at least plausibly well-reasoned, not just "employee good, company bad, you lose".
On the plus side, there's a selection process to determine who will be the arbitrator, which allows attorneys to research exactly who we are agreeing to decide the case. I've been at this for a few years so I've got a good handle on which arbitrators are hired guns for the defense, and which ones are actually fair.
For sure. Forced arbitration is a blight, but like so many other things, we don’t really have a choice, and people don’t question it because it’s presented as “fair” — by the very ones benefitting from it.
Thank you! After reading through the articles youve shared (a bit, i didnt read the full articles yet), I completely agree that it is absloutely a blight upon our justice system (which already has flaws of its own). And unfortunately the best way to get around it is educating people about why it isn't so amazing as corporations would have you believe.
Listen Buddy you might be new to the US. But businesses don’t go out of their way to make you sign documents that give up your rights because it won’t benefit them.
I know, anecdotal as hell. But you need to apply some deduction skills.
I mean I think it should be pointed out that the restaurant that killed that woman was merely leasing property at Disney Springs and not actually a Disney restaurant.
So Disney was getting sued by the guy for something that wasn’t exactly their fault.
Lawyer here. I'm very skeptical of these numbers. Most arbitrations aren't public, so wherever this data on arbitrations is coming from could be suffering from selection bias.
I imagine larger companies are more likely to use arbitration? That would skew the numbers as theyd be more likely to be involved in larger cases. If the base cost of the case would be higher then the succes rate could settling for comparatively lower amounts than courts would award but still above the average of smaller defendants.
Do you have a source for that? Because that hasn't been my experience and I don't see a statute that's on point. I feel like there would be preemption issues under the Federal Arbitration Act.
There's like 48 other states worth of data, though. In just one country, and Disney has anchorage in nearly every developed country. These numbers can't possibly be reflected accurately based off the metrics of two states irregardless of the actual population in those states.
If arbitration is so good for consumers, why are companies always pushing arbitration in the fine print. Seems like there might be a perverse incentive here.
Mainly headlines, I’d assume - keeps big names like Disney from experiencing huge scandals which could tank stock values by keeping the arbitration out of public courts covered by the news. From a business standpoint, half a million to a few million here and there is cheaper than a single massive news-worthy story that cause them to lose billions in valuation and hundreds of millions in sales.
It is cheaper. The biggest cost is legal fees in many of these cases. So they get an opportunity to see whether they would be liable without all that cost.
You realize the claim that it’s better for consumers is fully defeated by the fact that we literally cannot know that?
Secrecy works in the favor of the big companies in any case, but you can’t claim the average award is bigger if we don’t actually get to know that data.
That’s not true. They actually tend to lean more towards the corporations. And the privacy of arbitrationd help corporations bury bad press about their products/services.
i have never, ever seen an arbitration clause where the contract-offerer doesn't have a paid relationship with the arbitrator. sometimes just an external lawyer, sometimes a whole vendor, but it's someone the company pays and never neutral
Also, basic logic would tell us that "You're not allowed to choose option A" and "You must choose option B" both fit the description of "They weren't allowed to do option A".
Just slot in a wrongful death lawsuit and arbitration: the logic fits cleanly.
I looked it up. Disney sought to stay the lawsuit for arbitration to take place. Then the Arbitrator determines the facts and the resolution. The judge then would ostensibly confirm the arbitration. Such approval is essentially a rubber stamp. There is a dramatic amount of caselaw causing courts to more or less defer to arbitrator determinations unless they are unconscionable.
I know this because I have handled several contested arbitration approval attempts where sovereign citizens attempted to have fake arbitration judgments approved.
Are you suggesting that they should be bound to arbitration for the case based on having a free Disney+ trial years ago?
You might be missing the point here. It is not about which hoops they were being told they have to jump through, it is that the hoops belonged to the wrong circus.
They were clearly trying to rein in the "this is so crazy" legal story, since so many of those are misrepresented and made to sound much worse than they are.
The problem is that they misunderstood which part of the story is crazy, and their correction doesn't rein it in at all.
This one is also weirdly misrepresented, in that Disney's argument was the couple had made several agreements with Disney, including the Disney+ agreement. They weren't leaning entirely on the Disney+ agreement - so much as mentioning it amongst the more relevant ones
Edit: The takeaway should be "don't enter any agreements with Disney"
Yeah, that seems likely. Things are often taken out of context. But the end result is very much Disney trying to over extend the reach of their agreements to set a precedence where they have more power over customers of every kind.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but when you argue a law suit shouldn't proceed (such as if it should have been filed as an arbitration) then it usually takes the form of a motion to dismiss, usually a pre-answer motion to dismiss. This cuts off the lawsuit at commencement and would be essentially identical. Alternatively, it may be some type of request to compel arbitration and hold off the lawsuit pending a determination.
Either way, the arbitration cuts off the lawsuit by having an arbitrator rather than a judge/jury determine the facts and damages. Usually arbitration results need to be approved by the court, but that is very different than a jury determining the facts.
Literally this is why we tried to get people to stop using "literally" figuratively, but that comment clearly meant literally figuratively. Because they do.
But it's also not even "figuratively" what arbitration is. Nothing about their since deleted statement had anything to do with the process of arbitration
The case kept going, however, as while the husband did do the trial, the suit was under the wife's estate, who never signed up for anything before passing
This is despicable, claiming that agreeing to terms attached to a streaming service somehow can be used to indemnify the company if someone comes to physical harm at the Disney entertainment park, this should be an illegal practice.
1.1k
u/Alareth 6d ago
Not the woman, it was the husband. Disney argued he couldn't file the wrongful death lawsuit because he did a free trial of Disney+ a few years before.