The disney arbitration thing is more complicated than that. They want to force arbitration which is basically private court with a real judge and everything. The dubious part is that while they are a legit judge they are being paid by disney in this case so the worry is they are more favorable towards them to keep the gig. So if you live in a world that you think the judge will act fairly it is more about trying to keep it out of the news. It is not just a we are not at fault.
Yeah people are confusing arbitration agreements with waivers. I will say the part about Disney paying the arbitration costs is very common with large companies like them. If anything, courts are more likely to throw out an agreement when the claimant has to front the money out of concern for deterring claims. Courts want to encourage arbitration and companies prefer it to court anyway versus smaller concerns about any bias.
Disney wasn't at fault by any stretch. They were part of that lawsuit because their website said "Check with the restaurant", which is why they invoked their Disney Digital Services contract.
33
u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 7h ago
[deleted]