Didn’t Disney try this with a Disney+ account and a wrongful death at Disneyland?
And I thought that was bad, but at least the person was an adult when they checked the checkbox. Roblox has taken it to the next level of cartoon evil.
Yep. There’s been an update, actually; the widower appears to have gotten a financial settlement with NDA and dropped the case. After a 2 year fight with Disney lawyers, that’s about as good as you can hope for.
Hopefully he finds some peace, what a horrific way to lose someone.
Yeah, I remember that. They talked to the restaurant at Disney World and triple-checked because of her severe allergies. There probably felt like they were being too careful and paranoid. Obviously, the story is Disney’s reaction and the backlash to them trying to argue Disney+ streaming subscription agreement meant the husband forfeited his right to a jury trial for something else. I don’t know how much they got, but it’s still heartbreaking…
In the latest article, he suddenly flat out refuses to talk about it whatsoever and drops the case, which usually means a private settlement. We have no way of knowing how much he got, unfortunately.
And yeah it’s horrifying, because it wasn’t even like a tiny cross contamination mistake or something. There was so much lactose/nut allergens in her body, that her EpiPen and the hospital could do nothing to save her. Complete gross negligence.
But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.
In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.
Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.
My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.
Children under a certain age are not able to sign valid contracts. Not sure about this jurisdiction (some of those laws in the US are crazy and the article is not mentioning where this is based) But in most civilized countries every lawyer should know that such an argument is silly.
Even in the US, a lot of TOS/T&Cs are unenforceable. It’s harder to get a judge to say it, but there’s case law holding a LOT of these as useless - and your point would also almost certainly come up even in a civil suit, let alone a criminal trial.
When is an 8 year old considered legally competent to sign legal documents? Not in Australia and I thought not in the US.
I’ll bet you it holds up.
There is no legal basis in which an 8 year old can sign and be held liable in a contract, especially for something like an Eula in a video game. Terms and agreements don’t tend to hold up in court when adults break them, I can’t imagine it holds up at all for a child.
This will be the case that sets the legal precedent.
I’ll take that bet
