Chat is this real

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.

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 certainly going to cause a reaction.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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

Let's go

Yeah I think there's a lot of people who aren't getting this. It wasn't an informed consent to danger form where the activity they knew was dangerous, and signed off on, killed them. This was a Terms of Service agreement you automatically agree to when you make a purchase. It's supposed to govern the terms of using that purchase.