<story><title>Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms</title><url>https://wdwnt.com/2024/08/disney-dismissal-wrongful-death-lawsuit/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shiroiushi</author><text>&amp;gt;They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.&lt;p&gt;When has that ever happened?  I can&amp;#x27;t think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.</text></item><item><author>thih9</author><text>In general I agree, except perhaps &amp;quot;Disney can only win.&amp;quot;. They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.&lt;p&gt;Their service is hospitality and the message they&amp;#x27;re sending here is very much inhospitable. It might turn into a meme, like &amp;quot;Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL&amp;quot;. It might make people hesitate and&amp;#x2F;or choose a different holiday destination. Etc.</text></item><item><author>tgsovlerkhgsel</author><text>The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion&amp;#x2F;claim, Disney can only win.&lt;p&gt;In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs.&lt;p&gt;Courts should be able to issue sanctions&amp;#x2F;extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from &amp;quot;you killed this person negligently&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband&amp;quot;, and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Rinzler89</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt;When has that ever happened? I can&amp;#x27;t think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Exactly. VW shortened the lifespan of millions of Europeans with their Diesel gate and their finances are still solid. Ikea and Oil companies destroy the environment all the time and saw no financial hit from the PR issues. Nike, Apple and other major manufacturers are known to have used sweatshop labor and also saw no financial consequences.&lt;p&gt;Consumers just don&amp;#x27;t seem to care enough about the PR of $COMPANY as long as their contempt with how the $PRODUCT they bought works and serves them well.</text></comment>
<story><title>Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms</title><url>https://wdwnt.com/2024/08/disney-dismissal-wrongful-death-lawsuit/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>shiroiushi</author><text>&amp;gt;They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.&lt;p&gt;When has that ever happened?  I can&amp;#x27;t think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.</text></item><item><author>thih9</author><text>In general I agree, except perhaps &amp;quot;Disney can only win.&amp;quot;. They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss.&lt;p&gt;Their service is hospitality and the message they&amp;#x27;re sending here is very much inhospitable. It might turn into a meme, like &amp;quot;Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL&amp;quot;. It might make people hesitate and&amp;#x2F;or choose a different holiday destination. Etc.</text></item><item><author>tgsovlerkhgsel</author><text>The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion&amp;#x2F;claim, Disney can only win.&lt;p&gt;In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs.&lt;p&gt;Courts should be able to issue sanctions&amp;#x2F;extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from &amp;quot;you killed this person negligently&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband&amp;quot;, and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>roshin</author><text>Bud light is a famous recent example. Of course, the company is large enough that it didn&amp;#x27;t make the company bankrupt, but it hurt them</text></comment>