Film Theory: Is Disney+ Worth Signing Your Life Away?

Summary

The video script discusses a legal case where Disney attempted to use a broad arbitration clause from their Disney Plus Terms of Service to avoid a lawsuit following a fatal allergic reaction at one of their restaurants. The script explores the implications of such clauses, questioning their legality and fairness, and highlights the importance of reading terms and conditions. It concludes with Disney backing down from using the clause after public backlash, emphasizing the need for consumer vigilance and collective action against overreaching corporate terms.

Takeaways

• 📜 Disney's Terms of Service include clauses that prevent customers from suing Disney if they get hurt at one of their parks.
• 🍽️ A woman named Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan died from an allergic reaction to food at a Disney-owned restaurant, prompting her husband to sue Disney for wrongful death.
• 🤝 Disney attempted to use a legal loophole in their Disney+ terms to argue that the case should be settled through arbitration instead of in court.
• 📱 Jeffrey Piccolo, the husband of the deceased, had signed up for Disney+, and Disney claimed this meant he agreed to arbitration for any disputes related to Disney.
• 🏢 Arbitration is a private dispute resolution method that corporations prefer as it keeps legal issues out of the public eye.
• 📝 The terms and conditions of Disney+ claim that any disputes, even those unrelated to the service, must be resolved through arbitration.
• 🚫 The broad terms are potentially unconscionable, as they could prevent customers from suing Disney for serious issues that have nothing to do with the service they signed up for.
• 🏛️ Despite the legal argument that the terms might be unconscionable, courts have often upheld similar arbitration clauses as legal and enforceable.
• 🔍 The case gained public attention, leading to a backlash against Disney, which eventually agreed to go to court instead of arbitration.
• 👥 Consumers are often unaware of the extent to which they give up rights by agreeing to terms and conditions without reading them, which companies exploit.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the video script?

The main issue discussed is Disney's attempt to use a legal loophole in their Disney Plus Terms of Service to avoid a lawsuit for a wrongful death that occurred at one of their restaurants.

What happened to Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan at the Disney Springs restaurant?

Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction to food served at Raglan Road restaurant in Disney Springs, which resulted in her death due to the presence of nuts and dairy in the meal.

Why is Disney trying to prevent the case from going to court?

Disney is trying to prevent the case from going to court by invoking an arbitration clause in their Disney Plus Terms of Service, which they argue covers all disputes related to the Walt Disney Company or its affiliates.

What is the significance of Jeffrey Piccolo's agreement to Disney Plus Terms of Service in this case?

Jeffrey Piccolo's agreement to Disney Plus Terms of Service is significant because Disney argues that it waives his right to sue any part of Disney, including for incidents at their parks or restaurants, due to the broad language in the terms.

What is arbitration and why does Disney prefer it over going to court?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method outside of the court system, involving a neutral arbitrator. Disney prefers arbitration because it is typically quicker, private, and less public than a court trial.

What is the legal term used to describe a contract term that is so unfair it cannot be enforced?

The legal term used to describe an unfair contract term that cannot be enforced is 'unconscionable.'

How did the United States Supreme Court rule on similar arbitration clauses in the past?

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that arbitration clauses, like the ones used by AT&T and potentially Disney, are legal and enforceable, even if they are broad and one-sided.

What was the public's reaction to Disney's attempt to use the arbitration clause in this case?

The public reaction was negative, with a swift backlash against Disney for attempting to use the arbitration clause to avoid responsibility for the incident at the restaurant.

Did Disney change their Terms of Service as a result of this case?

Disney did not change their Terms of Service as a result of this case. They only waived their right to arbitration for this specific case after public backlash.

What is the call to action for viewers at the end of the video script?

The call to action is for viewers to be vigilant about the terms and conditions they agree to, to collectively hold corporations accountable for their terms, and to make changes by raising awareness and calling out unreasonable terms.

Outlines

00:00

🎬 Disney Plus and Hidden Legal Dangers

The paragraph introduces the shocking revelation that Disney's Terms of Service may prevent users from suing the company, even in cases of serious injury or death at its parks. Through a legal loophole tied to signing up for Disney Plus, users unknowingly waive their right to take legal action. This leads into an exploration of the legal implications and serves as the opening hook for the video.

05:04

⚖️ A Real-Life Tragedy and Disney's Legal Tactics

This paragraph presents the tragic case of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died from an allergic reaction at a Disney-owned restaurant. Her husband's attempt to sue Disney is met with a shocking defense: because he once signed up for Disney Plus, the lawsuit should be kept out of court and resolved via arbitration. This leads to a deep dive into Disney’s legal strategy and the implications for consumer rights.

10:06

🚫 Arbitration vs. Public Justice

The focus shifts to arbitration, explaining its role as an alternative legal process that Disney prefers due to its privacy. The paragraph explores how arbitration allows companies like Disney to avoid public scrutiny and escape full accountability, while making the case that Disney's terms of service force consumers into unfair situations.

15:08

📝 Disney's Expansive Legal Reach

This paragraph reveals just how far-reaching Disney's terms are, covering all affiliated companies and services under a single arbitration clause. It emphasizes how consumers unknowingly agree to waive their rights across various Disney-owned entities when signing up for Disney Plus, painting a grim picture of corporate overreach.

🧾 Unconscionable Contracts and Legal Limits

Here, the script examines the legal concept of 'unconscionable' contracts—those so extreme that they shock the conscience. The narrator explains that while terms of service are legal, they can be challenged if deemed overly unfair. The paragraph also discusses how past court rulings, including one involving AT&T, have upheld similar arbitration clauses, making it difficult to overturn such agreements.

❌ The Loophole in Disney's Defense

Disney's argument crumbles as the video reveals that Tangsuan herself never signed Disney Plus' terms of service, only her husband did. Legally, this means the arbitration agreement doesn’t apply to her case. The paragraph concludes with the public backlash Disney faced, leading them to back down from their initial defense.

📜 The Bigger Problem with Terms of Service

The narrator highlights the broader issue of companies embedding unreasonable clauses in lengthy terms of service, knowing most users won’t read them. The paragraph underscores how dangerous agreements can be hidden in the fine print and criticizes the exploitative nature of modern digital contracts, pointing out that most people unknowingly sign away key rights.

🤝 A Call for Collective Action

In the final paragraph, the narrator encourages viewers to take collective action by reviewing terms of service agreements as a community. By exposing unreasonable clauses through forums and social media, consumers can hold corporations accountable and push for fairer practices. The video concludes with a call to challenge exploitative terms by standing together.

Keywords

💡Disney Plus

Disney Plus is a subscription streaming service owned by The Walt Disney Company. In the context of the video, it is significant because the terms of service for this platform include a clause that potentially affects a user's ability to sue Disney for incidents occurring at their physical properties, such as theme parks. The video discusses a case where a woman died due to an allergic reaction at a Disney-owned restaurant, and her husband's attempt to sue Disney was met with this arbitration clause from his Disney Plus account.

💡Terms of Service

Terms of Service (ToS) are the rules and guidelines that users agree to when using a service or product. The video highlights how ToS can contain clauses that limit legal actions against a company, such as waiving the right to sue. The script discusses the case where a user's agreement to Disney Plus' ToS was used by Disney to argue against a lawsuit related to a tragic incident at a Disney-owned restaurant.

💡Arbitration

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where a neutral third party, known as an arbitrator, makes a decision after hearing arguments from both sides. The video explains how Disney uses arbitration clauses in their ToS to keep legal disputes out of public courts and maintain privacy, which can be advantageous for large corporations but may limit transparency and public accountability.

💡Negligence

Negligence, in a legal context, refers to a failure to exercise appropriate care, resulting in harm to another party. The video discusses a case where a woman suffered a fatal allergic reaction due to negligence at a Disney-owned restaurant, and the ensuing legal battle revolves around the company's responsibility and the attempt to resolve the issue through arbitration rather than a public trial.

💡Unconscionable

Unconscionable is a legal term used to describe a contract term that is so unfair or one-sided that it shocks the conscience. The video script uses this term to question the validity of the arbitration clause in Disney's ToS, suggesting that its broad scope could be considered unconscionable and potentially unenforceable by the courts.

💡Click-Wrap Agreement

A click-wrap agreement is a type of software licensing agreement where the user must click 'I agree' to the terms and conditions before they can use the software or service. The video mentions click-wrap agreements as a mechanism that companies use to ensure users acknowledge the terms, which can include arbitration clauses. The script implies that such agreements are designed to protect companies and may not always be in the best interest of the users.

💡Class Action Litigation

Class action litigation is a legal procedure where a large group of people collectively sue a defendant for similar claims. The video touches on how arbitration clauses in ToS can limit the ability to pursue class action lawsuits, as they often require individual arbitration instead of collective legal action.

💡Public Opinion

Public opinion refers to the collective views and attitudes of the public towards a particular issue or event. In the context of the video, Disney's decision to back down from enforcing the arbitration clause was influenced by public opinion, as the case gained media attention and sparked backlash against the company's legal strategy.

💡Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk is a genre of science fiction that features advanced technological and scientific achievements, juxtaposed with a degree of breakdown or radical change in the social order. The video uses the term 'cyberpunk' to describe a dystopian scenario where corporations have excessive power, including the ability to enforce broad arbitration clauses that limit individual rights.

💡Capitalist Dystopia

A capitalist dystopia is a hypothetical society where the principles of capitalism have led to negative societal outcomes, such as extreme wealth inequality or corporate control over individuals' lives. The video script uses this term to critique the broad arbitration clauses in ToS, suggesting that they represent an overreach of corporate power in a capitalist society.

Highlights

Disney Plus' Terms of Service may prevent users from suing Disney if they get hurt at one of their parks.

A tragic incident where a woman died due to an allergic reaction at a Disney-owned property has led to a lawsuit.

Disney is attempting to use a legal loophole in their Disney Plus terms to avoid court.

The terms of service for Disney Plus include a clause that forces disputes into arbitration rather than court.

Arbitration is a private dispute resolution method that corporations like Disney prefer.

Disney argues that because the deceased's husband signed up for Disney Plus, all disputes related to Disney are subject to arbitration.

The terms of service for Disney Plus are so broad that they claim to cover any disputes involving Disney or its affiliates.

The case raises questions about the legality and enforceability of overly broad arbitration clauses.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of similar arbitration clauses, setting a precedent for their legality.

The case highlights the importance of reading and understanding terms of service before agreeing to them.

Disney's terms of service are an example of how companies can use legal language to protect themselves at the expense of consumers.

The case has sparked a public backlash against Disney, leading them to reconsider their stance on the lawsuit.

Disney has agreed to go to court instead of arbitration, but this does not change their terms of service.

The incident serves as a reminder that terms and conditions can contain clauses that significantly impact consumers' rights.

The video calls for collective action from consumers to hold corporations accountable for their terms and conditions.

The case illustrates the power dynamics between consumers and corporations, and the need for vigilance when agreeing to terms of service.

Transcripts

Do you have a Disney Plus account?

If so, did you know that because you agreed  to this part of their Terms of Service,

you can't sue Disney if you  get hurt at one of their parks?

Like, say, if you break a bone.

Or lose a limb.

Or maybe, just maybe, if you die.

Yeah, the mouse is actually making the argument  that if you sign up for a Disney Plus account,

you're literally signing your life away.

Are they right?

Well, let's break it down.

Hello, Internet!

Welcome to Film Theory, the show  that always reads the fine print.

I want you to imagine for a moment that you  have a loved one that has a severe allergy

to peanuts.

So, when you go out to eat at a restaurant,  you have done everything in your power to

make sure that this restaurant  has food without peanuts in it.

You checked the restaurant's website, looked  over the menu, informed the waiter, checked

with the chef, and confirmed that the  food that was brought out was good to eat.

And yet, a tragic mistake has been made.

The food does have peanuts and your  loved one dies after eating it.

Heartbroken and seeking justice, you sue the  restaurant for negligence, only for the restaurant

to try to keep it out of the courts because,  years ago, you agreed to the terms of service

for a completely different app that  happened to be run by the same company.

If this sounds like the nightmarish plot of  an episode of Black Mirror, it sadly isn't.

This actually happened.

A woman named Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan died  after suffering an allergic reaction to food

served at a restaurant on  a property owned by Disney.

And now, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, is  trying to sue Disney for the wrongful death

of his wife.

But Disney is trying to keep this out of the  courts with a legal loophole buried in their

terms of service.

But not the terms of service for this restaurant,  it's the terms of service for Disney+,

all because Piccolo once signed up  for a free trial of the service.

I don't want to make light of this case.

A woman, a real human being, has died.

And Disney is trying to get out of this  lawsuit because they watched The Mandalorian.

I wanted to highlight this case and really  dig into it because this is absolutely insane, right?

How could this even be legal?

Is it even legal?

That's what I want to answer  today, loyal theorists.

Is this actually a defense Disney could use,  or should we all be objecting to this nonsense?

Well, here's a hint.

We should be very scared of the future  if this is a sign of things to come.

Click I agree, friends.

We have a lot to get through here.

So up front, I want to let you guys  know that I am not a legal professional.

I am not a lawyer and none  of this is legal advice.

You're also going to hear me say the words  alleged and allegedly a lot because that's

real legal language.

This is an ongoing case and you have to be  careful with how you talk about these sorts

of things, both from a legal perspective  but also because the truth is important.

So, cool? Cool.

To start out with, let's all get on the  same page about what actually happened here.

On October 5th, 2023, the  married couple Kanokporn  

Tangsuan and Jeffrey Piccolo ate at a restaurant

called Raglan Road at Disney  Springs in Orlando, Florida.

This is an area outside of the Disney parks  that acts like a sort of outdoor shopping

mall that's open to the public.

Many of the shops and restaurants here are  not owned or operated by Disney but lease

out the space from them else.

Raglan Road is such a restaurant.

Tangsuan had a severe allergy to nuts and dairy.

She couldn't consume any nut or dairy products  without potentially dying and Piccolo's

complaint alleges that they used the information  from Disney's website to see if the Raglan

Road menu had options she could eat.

That's actually why they also think Disney  is liable in this case since their website

allegedly said the menu would be safe.

Even still, Piccolo alleges that the couple  repeatedly informed the staff at Raglan Road

of this allergy and confirmed that the chef  could prepare free from nuts and dairy.

However, about an hour after eating the meal,  Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction and

sadly died shortly afterwards at the hospital.

A medical examiner determined that she had  dairy and nuts in her system, which caused

her death.

Later, in February of this year, Piccolo filed  a wrongful death complaint against both Raglan

Road and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, alleging  that the two companies were negligent in serving

Tangsuan by not ensuring that the food  they said didn't have nuts and dairy in it,

actually didn't have nuts and dairy in it.

Disney countered this by saying that it shouldn't  go to court because, in 2019, Piccolo signed

up for a Disney Plus account on his PlayStation.

That's actually what's in the legal documents,  by the way, that exact explanation with the

PlayStation.

Oh, and also, in 2023, he bought tickets to  the Epcot theme park using the Walt Disney

Parks and Resorts website, but didn't use them.

So, if it wouldn't be in the  courts, what would happen then?

Well, then it would go to arbitration,  and here's why that matters.

Arbitration is an alternate way to resolve  legal disputes that doesn't involve a courtroom,

instead of being taken before a judge and  a jury, arbitration is resolved by, well,

an arbitrator.

That's like a neutral or freelance judge.

This is often much quicker than going to court  because there are a limited number of judges

and they're almost all busy all the time,  and arbitration is almost always done in a

private setting, which corporations like Disney  would prefer because they don't want to air

dirty laundry.

But, if you were trying to make a point, to  make a company that you believed caused the

death of your spouse publicly acknowledge  that fact and make them face justice, you

might not want to keep it behind closed doors.

But, okay, why does Disney think this  should go to arbitration in the first place?

Well, both of the services that Piccolo used  here, Disney Plus and the Parks and Resorts

website, have clauses in them  that say that they have to.

I'll put the exact text up on screen, but  to save both you and me from having to wade

through all of this legalese, I'll  just translate what this means.

Basically, if you have any sort of disagreement  or problem with Disney's direct-to-consumer

services, that's the wing of Disney that  is specifically dealing with digital media

like Disney Plus, at any point in the past,  present, or future, you agree that you won't

take it to court.

Instead, you'll take it to arbitration,  which will keep things private.

And, at this point, you're probably wondering,  wait, how could they possibly make the argument

that this covers what happened  at the Disney Springs restaurant?

That seems like a stretch, right?

How could you think that this case has anything  to do with Disney's direct-to-consumer services?

Well, also buried in the terms and conditions  of the Disney Plus Subscriber Agreement is

this phrase.

You, on the one hand, and Disney Plus, on  the other hand, agree to resolve, by binding

individual arbitration, all disputes, including  any related disputes involving the Walt Disney

Company or its affiliates.

I repeat, any related disputes involving  the Walt Disney Company or its affiliates.

Again, if that legalese is hard for you to  get a handle on, this is basically saying

that because you agreed to the Disney Plus  terms and conditions, you're waiving your

right to trial against any part of Disney,  period, regardless of how far removed it is

from Disney Plus.

And just a reminder, of all the sorts of things  Disney has a stake in, it's not only Disney,

and Pixar, and Marvel, or whatever.

It's also all of their Disney parks, and  the Disney Cruise Lines, and Fox, and ESPN,

and ABC, and Buena Vista International, and  Hollywood Records, and National Geographic,

and A&E, and Hyperion Books, and Compass  Roads Land Corporation, and Reedy Creek Energy

Services, and Partners Federal Credit Union?

They even have investments  in GoPro, and Photobucket,  

and Epic Games, so can I not sue Fortnite

or the Unreal Engine because I signed up to  watch The World According to Jeff Goldblum?

Now, I shouldn't need to tell you  that this is horrifying and evil.

This is such an overreach and so broad that  it feels like we're living in cyberpunk.

Welcome to the capitalist dystopia, I'm  sorry we have a boring one, I wish ours was

more exciting with flying cars and laser katanas.

But would this be legal?

Well, just because something is in a product's  terms and services, that doesn't mean that

it's the end-all be-all and  that it can't be undone.

In fact, if one of the terms is found to  be unconscionable, it can't be enforced.

And by the way, unconscionable is an actual  legal term that is incredibly unhelpful in

just how vague it is.

Basically, it's anything that is so extreme,  unfair, or one-sided that it quote, shocks

the conscience.

Very helpful.

Very demure.

If you want an example of something that would  classify, if you ever signed an agreement

that said you would forfeit ownership of  your first born child, that wouldn't hold up

in court.

Fun fact, one study did actually put that  in a product's terms of service and people

still happily agreed to them, most likely  because they didn't bother reading it.

Oh, and my favorite example of a wholesome  company actually having fun in their TOS

in a legal and good way has to be  Larian Studios with Baldur's Gate 3.

Their terms state that the entire agreement  must be referred to as the pact, and you cannot

make any similar agreements with any  other demonic, eldritch, or fey beings.

That's why you read the fine print, people,  you never know what sorcery they slip into this.

So, would something like this arbitration clause  in the Disney Plus TOS count as unconscionable?

I mean, personally, just the fact of how broad  it is that you can't sue any part of Disney

makes me think that it should be.

The lawyers representing the victim here also  agree, calling Disney's defense so outrageously

unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial  conscience, and many law professionals believe

that this is too far-reaching to hold up.

But would the courts agree?

Well…

Back in 2011, a California couple sued AT&T  for false advertising and hidden fees, but

AT&T's defense was that the couple agreed  to their terms of service, and the TOS said

they had to go to arbitration  rather than to court.

Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it?

Well, the California court system actually  came down on the side of the couple, and agreed

that this part of the contract  was unconscionable and illegal.

But they weren't the last word on it.

No, this case made it all the way to the United  States Supreme Court, who decided that AT&T's

arbitration clause and all others like it  throughout the country was legal and allowed

it. Basically,  

they thought that because so many  contracts had these arbitration agreements

in them and it hadn't been a problem  before, how could it be a problem now?

Yes, that was the actual rationale.

This was a HUGE deal, with one law professor  calling it quote a real game-changer for class

action litigation.

And this wasn't the only example of this.

Arbitration clauses like these  have repeatedly held up in court.

The only times they haven't, it's been  because the corporation got sloppy or stupid,

particularly by updating their TOS  without actually telling anybody.

Basically, they pulled a Darth Vader.

This is also why companies are so adamant  about emailing you when they update their

TOS.

They don't want to get sued.

And another way companies get sloppy is by  not making people actually agree to the terms

of service.

This is why we see what's known as  a click-wrap agreement all the time.

Basically, these are TOS where all of the  terms of service are presented in a clear,

accessible manner like a text box with a  scroll bar or a link to another document.

A user then has to click on a box saying I  accept or do some action that says I have

read these terms of service.

I'm sure that you, like me, have agreed  to hundreds of these things at this point,

and they're kind of annoying, right?

Well, they exist for a reason, and mostly  it's to protect a company providing a product

or service.

And as long as you click I agree, the courts  have tended to side with the companies that

these terms are legal and enforceable.

But Disney didn't make any of  those mistakes in this case.

This arbitration clause is clearly written  in the Disney Plus terms of service, as is

this wildly overreaching agreement that it  applies to everything related to Disney.

They didn't surprise Piccolo and update  the terms without telling him, and you are

given ample opportunity to read the  TOS before signing up for Disney Plus.

So, theoretically, if Disney wanted to fight  this on the face of things, despite how stupid

and dumb and outright evil this is, there's  a great chance that the courts would end up

siding with them.

Well, that would be the case,  except for one important thing.

Disney never had a case here to  begin with, and they knew it.

See, something that I haven't really seen  anyone talking about in this case is the fact

that Tangsuan, the woman who died, wasn't  the one who agreed to the Disney Plus terms

and conditions.

Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, did.

Her husband is the representative of her estate  in this case, but anything that he did for

himself in a personal capacity, like, say, sign  up for a Disney Plus account or buy tickets

to a Disney park online, none of  that can or should apply to his wife.

She was the one that was wronged here, not him.

Imagine if you marry someone and that person  takes out a new credit card under their name.

If they rack up a bunch of debt on that card,  only in their name, and then they die, you

are not responsible for their debt.

Their estate is.

The exact same thing applies  here, just in reverse.

Tonkswan is not responsible for any personal  agreements her husband made in his name only,

and vice versa.

Piccolo's lawyers actually brought this up  themselves when they countered Disney, saying

that, quote,

Disney wasn't going to win either in the  United States court system or in the court

of public opinion, which is why, in  the end, Disney backed down here.

Yeah, since this case caught the public's  attention, Disney faced a swift and justifiable

backlash, which caused them to  panic and walk everything back.

They've agreed to go to court instead.

As they explained, quote,

Yeah, sure.

Now, I'm not saying you decided to back  down here because it made you look like an

evil corporation, but it sure looks like you  backed down here because it made you look

like an evil corporation.

Art imitates life.

Life imitates art.

So what's the takeaway here?

Why does all of this matter beyond just being  another way to prove that Disney is evil and

got bullied into doing the right thing?

Well, first off, Disney did a tactical retreat  here, but they're not actually changing

anything.

All they did in this case was  waive their right to arbitration.

They're not changing the ridiculous  terms of their subscriber agreement.

Secondly, they're not the only ones doing this  sort of trickery in their terms and conditions.

According to The Guardian, it would take you  almost 250 hours a year to read through all

the terms and conditions for the products you use.

CC Magazine estimated in 2020 that it would  take you two and a half hours to read the

TOS for Microsoft Teams, two hours for  Candy Crush, an hour and a half for TikTok.

No one has time for that.

And in fact, a 2017 survey found that 91% of  people don't read these terms and conditions

before agreeing to them.

And I get it.

I mean, I don't read them because  I have better things to do.

And so do you.

These companies and corporations know  this, and they take advantage of that.

Like, earlier we joked about the companies  putting strange things in their TOS as a

joke or to run an experiment.

But some seriously dangerous stuff could be  in there as well, and you may never know it.

As long as you click I Agree to all of these  random terms and conditions for the things

we use every day, you're signing  away so many of your rights.

And that's terrifying.

So where do we go from here?

What do we do?

Well, a company having terms and conditions  that a user needs to agree to is reasonable.

They do need to protect themselves  from ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits.

But at the same time, the terms and conditions  themselves have to be reasonable too, and

we can hold them accountable.

You, and me, and everyone else out there.

One person might not have the time to sit  through all of the terms and conditions that

we agree to every day, but together?

Collectively, we can read through all of this.

As a community, we can band together on forums,  and on Reddit, and on social media, and look

at what we're actually signing up  for when we agree to these terms.

And if there's something objectionable,  if there's something stupid and ridiculous

like signing the right to sue any part of  a corporation away just because you want to

watch the new Moana, we can call them out  and make these corporations answer for it.

We can make change.

You just have to click I  Agree on doing it together.

But hey, that's just a theory.

A film theory.

And cut.

And if you want another theory about Disney  just being the worst, check out our video

about how they almost killed the X-Men.