This is the same terms of service that were stretched to indemnify against theme park accidents. [0]

Why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt?

[0] https://lawcouncil.au/international-law/ils-insights/tangled...

Your link doesn't appear to work for me.

In case folks aren't aware, Disney tried to avoid an allergy-related wrongful death lawsuit from a restaurant at Disney Springs (large publicly available outdoor mall that doesn't even require tickets) because a couple had a Disney+ streaming trial:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The original lawsuit was spurious to begin with because the restaurant wasn't even operated by Disney.

▲

oivey 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Incredibly irrelevant. By asserting their ToS this way, they clearly would have tried to use it in any situation where they had potential liability.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>they clearly would have tried to use it in any situation where they had potential liability.

That's just how lawyers work. They'll try to invoke any defense that's vaguely applicable, just like any plaintiff lawyer will try to invoke any cause of action that's vaguely applicable, like the plaintiffs in this exact case.

▲

LPisGood 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s not true in general. Plenty of jurisdictions do not allow you to use contradictory arguments in hopes that one is persuasive.

	▲	Dylan16807 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That sounds bad to me! The TOS argument was so awful it deserves some kind of bonus loss, but let's put that aside for now. Let's say I paint a fence, and my neighbor complains I ruined a particular segment that shouldn't have been painted. Why can't I argue that this segment was on my property and that my neighbor gave permission to use that paint on all segments on their property? Let's say there's a 15% chance the survey was wrong about the fence location, and a 15% chance the court disagrees with how I'm interpreting the agreement. If I can use both arguments I have a 2% chance of losing, which seems fair to me. Both arguments are reasonable, so why should I have to risk it on only one?
	▲	gruez 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In the context of this story (ie. US), it's specifically allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading#Civil_law

▲

ndriscoll 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't excuse poor actions by saying these sorts of people just normally act poorly. It's their choice to act unethically.