• chakan2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s some pretty hardcore click bait.

    They’re arguing her estate has to go to arbitration. They’re not arguing they are absolved of guilt.

    It’s pretty ugly already, but the title is sensational bullshit.

    • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I have no clue what the title is trying to tell me and I’m not clicking the link to find out, because fuck clickbait.

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      They want it to go to arbitration where A. Their dirty laundry will not be aired publicly, they can enforce complete privacy and gag the defense forever, and
      B. Where the arbitration that the company hand-picks will almost guarantee to conveniently rule in favor of the company with a binding, non-appealable ruling?

      Fuck all of that, it does not make it better. Dinsey is trying to operate outside the law like every other corporation so desperately wants to.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Arbitrators are very likely to lose their business if they rule against their more frequent client (which is the company of course).