Thread

Disney+: New user agreement allows ads before movies in all subscriptions

509 points · 372 comments · DeepLogin

semiquaver · 1789988297 · focus · HN ↗
Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”
I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.
1. shakna · 1789988542 · focus · HN ↗
  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] <a href="https://lawcouncil.au/international-law/ils-insights/tangled-in-terms-disney-clause-a-wrongful-death-lawsuit-and-bad-pr" rel="nofollow">https://lawcouncil.au/international-law/ils-insights/tangled...
  1. echelon · 1789991860 · focus · HN ↗
    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:
    <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
    gruez · 1789992548 · focus · HN ↗
    The original lawsuit was spurious to begin with because the restaurant wasn't even operated by Disney.
    oivey · 1789993178 · focus · HN ↗
    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 · 1789994219 · focus · HN ↗
    >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.
    oivey · 1790029701 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s not at all how lawyers or businesses work. The job of the lawyer is to represent the client. Lawyers didn’t ultimately decide to use the ToS in this way, Disney did. Disney estimated the reputational risk and calling attention to their morally (and legally) questionable ToS was worth the risk.
    Stop infantilizing these people as if they have no other way to behave. It isn’t a law of nature that companies have to behave immorally. Hopefully you apply that understanding to your own job, too.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.