Politics

1245 readers

7 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

Monitor every stock trade Congress and the White House makes

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The couple added that they were “horrified” that a large corporation like Uber could “avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries.”

After several days and countless news stories surrounding Disney’s bid to use Disney+ terms to shield itself from a lawsuit tied to Disney World, the Hollywood giant later backtracked and dropped the legal claim, allowing the matter to proceed in court instead of through arbitration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This does not seem like it could or should be legal.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It really shouldn't be. I was hoping Disney wan't going to back down so it could be dealt with in court (and ideally struck down). As it stands, it's still untested, legally, since Disney agreed to drop their fight. I'm almost positive that's why Disney backed down so that they could keep that umbrella binding arbitration clause and still hopefully use it later.

Hopefully the couple here is able to get legal help in suing and the umbrella binding arbitration clause they signed in an unrelated ToS can be struck down. That would very likely nullify Disney's as well.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago

Last month, a New Jersey court of appeals sided with Uber against the McGintys, allowing the ride-hailing and delivery company to enforce an arbitration agreement requiring the couple to arbitrate their personal injury claims, rather than litigating them in court.

If it was a different SCOTUS, I'd say take it all the way. It's a crap shoot right now though.