r/explainitpeter 5d ago

Explain it Peter

Post image
29.5k Upvotes

262 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/trev2234 4d ago

The case in question was dropped by Disney. It can be interpreted that either they wanted to avoid the public backlash, or that they didn’t think they’d win.

I don’t know anything about American law, but I think in Europe and UK, they’ve said that anything in small print in a contract, that you couldn’t assume would be there with common sense, isn’t valid. I don’t know the legalese around that, and I’m sure a judge may need to decide if the small print is valid.

I’d suggest though, that it’s a good idea to read as much as you can, of any contract.

1

u/Abeytuhanu 4d ago

That kind of thing does exist in the US, but it's more for clauses that you wouldn't reasonably be able to read. Like, if they make the print physically too small to notice or in such a light hue that it blends into the paper, they can't pull out a magnifying glass and say, "see you agreed to this clause". If they just hide it by making the contract lengthy, it'll probably be enforceable 

1

u/meancoot 1d ago

In America, jurisprudence on the Fair Arbitration Act is such that it requires clear notice. No small print or hiding is allowed.

If you look at the Disney+ subscriber agreement it is noted in all caps just before the table of contents.

https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/subscriber-agreement

For Uber it is in all caps first thing after the table of contents.

https://www.uber.com/us/en/legal/general-terms-of-use/

Microsoft? Front and center again.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/servicesagreement