It's moreso an image move. Technically speaking they weasel these things into their contracts and the users, knowingly or not, sign these contracts. Most, unknowingly, because people refuse to read nowadays. As, it's not the "cool" thing to do. Because we like to regress ( But that's another topic for another day 😂). But nonetheless, you're bound by these legal agreements. If Disney "wanted" to, they could've strong armed this and doubled down. But then that'd be detrimental to their image. Because it gained so much traction in the public media, they made an exception. Had it not gained traction, this would've 100% stayed exactly where it was & have gone to arbitration. With the individual (Piccolo) likely receiving little to nothing.
@@Spikesxu Image is certainly a factor of course and this situation does carry a particular level of public distaste that may not be a feature of other similar disney scandals. But terms of service cannot be written up with utter impunity- they would still need to be argued and decided to be valid in legal proceedings. They were asking to get the case thrown out due to ToS- if it wasnt thrown out, that precedent would exist- and Disney's slimy ToS might not be able to protect them from litigation in future instances with less scrutiny and eyes on them. So if they had to risk it theyrd rather not do it on such an egregious and public wrongful death claim. At this point, including the image reasons you outlined, makes more sense to just try to settle and throw some money at Mr. Piccolo and let all of this go away.
![[FULL EP.73] เปิดบ้าน 70 ล้าน "แป้ง Zbing" ยกมาทั้งญี่ปุ่น l เคหสถานบานปลาย l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YBnJhTt07Pg/mqdefault.jpg)
they definitely pulled out of this I think so that they wouldn't put any of their current ToS schemes at precedental risk
It's moreso an image move. Technically speaking they weasel these things into their contracts and the users, knowingly or not, sign these contracts. Most, unknowingly, because people refuse to read nowadays. As, it's not the "cool" thing to do. Because we like to regress ( But that's another topic for another day 😂). But nonetheless, you're bound by these legal agreements.
If Disney "wanted" to, they could've strong armed this and doubled down. But then that'd be detrimental to their image. Because it gained so much traction in the public media, they made an exception. Had it not gained traction, this would've 100% stayed exactly where it was & have gone to arbitration. With the individual (Piccolo) likely receiving little to nothing.
@@Spikesxu Image is certainly a factor of course and this situation does carry a particular level of public distaste that may not be a feature of other similar disney scandals. But terms of service cannot be written up with utter impunity- they would still need to be argued and decided to be valid in legal proceedings. They were asking to get the case thrown out due to ToS- if it wasnt thrown out, that precedent would exist- and Disney's slimy ToS might not be able to protect them from litigation in future instances with less scrutiny and eyes on them. So if they had to risk it theyrd rather not do it on such an egregious and public wrongful death claim. At this point, including the image reasons you outlined, makes more sense to just try to settle and throw some money at Mr. Piccolo and let all of this go away.