6 ms·
We're getting into the weeds a bit, but in regards to Disney plus, I expect the terms to apply to Disney plus, for the duration I use Disney plus. And I expect
by DistractionRect 2y ago
We're getting into the weeds a bit, but in regards to Disney plus, I expect the terms to apply to Disney plus, for the duration I use Disney plus. And I expect there to be legal boiler plate covering their bases.
E.g. For physical harm, perhaps I was upright/walking when something scary was on, and in my fright I stumbled/fell/flailed etc and experienced some bodily harm/death. I could totally understand and accept forced arbitration in this instance.
However, I don't expect that to continue for eternity. If I watched Disney plus for a day, canceled my subscription, and went to see Frozen on Ice years later, I wouldn't expect the Disney Plus ToS to have any bearing.
But anyways, back on point, I don't think the average person is legally competent enough to enter into these agreements. Laymen can read and argue what we expect/understand something to mean, but that's very different from what it legally means. This is why I think a ToS/Policy page are not good stand alone solutions.
- johndhi 2y agoI agree with you about what the Disney arbitration agreement should (fairly) apply to. I'd argue that the ToS/policy page solution can still work, though. We just need higher standards and greater clarity for what those policies are allowed to do, and what they are not allowed to do, and greater clarity on what the bright lines are for companies -- like, there should just be a rule about how contracts work in this Disney case, not a rule about where you need to tell people about the specific thing.