Disney's not alone in saying your clicks means you can't sue

Once people would realize buying multiple products or services from one vendor gets you into legal trouble, consumers might shy away from big corporations. That would give big corporations an incentive to split up into smaller ones.

In the end this is just one aspect of the problems caused by companies getting too big.

Perhaps said another way: if someone is going to go skydiving, it's reasonable to assume the thing that you're signing is to say, "I won't sue you if I get hurt," but it's a different thing to be sitting at a computer and agree, "I'll never sue you for any wrongdoing," when you sign up for some wholly digital service.

That is rather normal. People come to theme parks under a variety of ways. Some are just walk-ups subject to whatever waiver comes with buying a paper ticket. Others buy tickets online in other states/countries, places with maybe different rules about waivers. Some come with tour groups which might create new liability structures. Others are children, with rights that may or may not be able to be waived by their parents. And some people walking around the park are on free or donated tickets who may or may not have clicked anything.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that most arbitration agreements are enforcable.

The FTC has previously attempted rule making to invalidate predispute arbitration agreements, but a trump era Congress "disapproved" the rule. The solution at this point requires an act of Congress.

https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ is my website where I try and summarise everything I know along with sources.

It is codified into the law of every member state, but might differ on some implementation details. For instance, in the Netherlands forced arbitration can only exists if it fair and not burdensome, and disputes can still be taken to state court. Also these clauses cannot be applied for totally different disputes (like restaurant vs streaming service like in this case).

> Movements often get a lot of momentum when they get a catchy slogan that sticks, and "If you watch an episode of The Mandalorian, Disney can murder your wife" is a great one.

Maybe there's a movement to start printing up these as posters and pasting them around cities. Make them look like a true advert but with that as a quote.

https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/subscriber-agreement

Or better, have your own lawyer write you an arbitration agreement.

Just get bought by Disney.

I'm sure Disney would be happy to control more parts of the world, too. Everybody[0] wins!

[0] "Everybody" includes only those under Disney's corporate umbrella. No consideration is given to the welfare of the rest of the world. Winning void where prohibited. All rights reserved, including yours.

It's a scam to be avoided when at all possible.

I believe that any contract that doesn't contain "unconscionable" or illegal terms, is agreed to by all parties, and that involves consideration, is valid. I don't think that the ability to negotiate the terms is a factor. It's hard to see why it would be -- if I get a "take it or leave it" contract that I can't accept, then I can always just not enter into it.

This much is true and I think it's a well-established fact that consumers don't read the terms and conditions that they "agree to" by clicking a checkbox, because it's dense legal boilerplate and it would take hours to read and understand. Nobody is going to do that to sign up for a streaming service. Any terms not directly related to the streaming service should be unenforcable on that basis alone.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_%28contrac...

They are generally valid but courts may limit what may be enforced to a standard of reasonableness.

See the Wikipedia entry on Clickwrap, and Planet Money episode “Surprise, you just signed a contract!”