If you’re asking whether the binding arbitration clause would apply to the murder case, then no. Homicide falls under criminal law, where the state is the plaintiff. The state didn’t enter an agreement under the TOS. I suppose Disney could try to argue it applies if your legal estate filed a civil suit; in the real case it argued that the arbitration clause applied because the husband (who’d agreed to it) filed a civil suit as the plaintiff.
Instead, Disney would get away with it the old-fashioned way: because it’s a rich corporation.
As someone who did a trial Disney plus 4 years ago, is that TOS still valid if they came and murdered me in their restaurant?
I’m legit asking.
The mouse can now can legally assassinate you in your sleep.
oh boy!
You mean you didn’t fully read the TOS?
I just copy and paste their TOS and ask ChatGPT and according to it, even if I’m no longer a subscriber, they can still enforce arbitration.
If you’re asking whether the binding arbitration clause would apply to the murder case, then no. Homicide falls under criminal law, where the state is the plaintiff. The state didn’t enter an agreement under the TOS. I suppose Disney could try to argue it applies if your legal estate filed a civil suit; in the real case it argued that the arbitration clause applied because the husband (who’d agreed to it) filed a civil suit as the plaintiff.
Instead, Disney would get away with it the old-fashioned way: because it’s a rich corporation.
That’s exactly what happened here. So the result of this suit will be your answer
Disney backpeddeled on that argument because of the PR nightmare. But the damage is done