The HELLDIVERS™©®³ 2 EULA is a god damn URL

  • Breadhax0r@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    Tell that to the people who just got denied the ability to sue over an Uber crash because their daughter agreed to the Uber eats eula

    • zerosignal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or the family of the person who died at Disney and can’t sue because they did a free trial of Disney+

      • fluckx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.

        So it doesn’t actually hold any weight until a court actually rules on it.

        • merc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.

          Disney backed down. They still believe they have that right, and no court has ever said they didn’t, but the bad publicity was too much for them in this case. They’ll wait until there’s a case that doesn’t get that kind of publicity before they try to establish that precedent.

          • fluckx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            They can believe all they want. Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.

            I hope people stop believing they have that kind of power, but decide not to do it from the goodness of their heart or bad publicity.

            I should hope the actual law still has more relevance than a ToS.

            • merc
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.

              They believe that the users agreed to a contract that specifies that in any dealings with Disney they’ve agreed to binding arbitration.

              What’s the “false statement” there?

              • fluckx@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                The fact the family can’t sue. They absolutely can (edit: in my opinion). Disney Lawyers believe they can’t ( edit: in their opinion). But wether or not they can is up to a judge in this case. And not up to Disney.

                So saying they can’t is false until there is actual clarity.

                Edit: that is my opinion of course