This story was really offensive. A woman had a peanut allergy, said she had a peanut allergy. She ate in a restaurant in a Disney resort that advertised it as allergy-safe. They messed up her food, she got sick and died.

Now her estate is suing Disney. But she signed up for a Disney+ one month trial. The EULA had a contract that said "I agree to arbitrate all disputes with Disney." Now Disney is demanding that her wrongful death claim be arbitrated instead of a lawsuit.

This is obviously a nonsense outcome. No rational person would expect an EULA for a streaming service means they can be killed in a restaurant. If Disney owned only a streaming service, it wouldn't matter, but Disney is a mega-conglomerate with many businesses.

Arbitration is a ripoff. If an arbitrator gives the "wrong" decision, they're removed from the pool for future arbitrations. Courts also almost never overturn arbitrator decisions. If the arbitrator awards damages of $2M, that doesn't matter that a jury might have awarded $100M.

The reason is that a customer deals with the arbitrator once, but the arbitrator wants future business from mega-corporations. An arbitrator isn't going to give up his arbitration business just to help some victim.