• Ebby@lemmy.ssba.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    ·
    2 months ago

    "As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

    Notice they still claim arbitration is their right, that the streaming agreement is still valid, but would rather appease the masses to mitigate bad publicity.

    • feannag@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      2 months ago

      They also don’t want to test the legality of forced arbitration on something like this, where precedent against it might be set.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        2 months ago

        Especially when the judge will have seen the outrage and likely be influenced by it.

        I think you’re very right.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        That was my first thought… They initiated it for the precedent, they must have had reason to believe they wouldn’t get the ruling they wanted.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          The right case where there isn’t popular support for the plaintiff.

          Bonus points if the case has more of a grey area such as the plaintiff agreed to the TOS while doing something similar with another business unit and closer in time to when the incident occurs.

          I.E they sign the TOS for a Disney cruise and the incident happens a week later at the park.

          • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Courts should keep a tally record of bogus defences and charges that a plaintiff or defendant brings for each client…