It seems that other companies have similar provisions as Disney with regards to arbitration in the T&C of their online services. They know most people don’t read them, so are we clicking away our rights by using these services?
From the article:
Disney joins other companies such as Airbnb and Walmart that are using increasingly aggressive strategies in attempts to steer lawsuits they face from consumers into arbitration, a private legal process viewed as disadvantaging plaintiffs. Customers more and more must agree to contracts with sweeping arbitration clauses to use their services, but the consequences can be larger than they can be expected to comprehend.
Disney’s not alone in saying your clicks means you can’t sue
byu/ConfidentAirport7299 ineconomy
by ConfidentAirport7299
3 comments
Yes, now if there was only a way to change the T/C’s and still use the product or service.
Non of this passes the reasonable person standard. Any court that upholds this shit is corrupt.
There’s a well-known legal case involving a company called Horn Waterproofing Corp. and another called Bushwick Iron & Steel Co. Bushwick owed Horn some money but disputed the amount, so they sent Horn a check for less than what was owed. They wrote something like “payment in full” on the check, meaning if Horn cashed it, they would be agreeing that this lesser amount settled the entire debt.
Horn cashed the check but later tried to get the rest of the money. The court ruled against Horn, saying that by cashing the check, they had accepted Bushwick’s terms, even if they didn’t like it afterward. The court basically said that if you cash a check with those kinds of conditions, you’re agreeing to them, and the matter is considered settled. This case is often cited to show that such agreements can be legally binding if you accept the terms by your actions.