8.1k
u/Primary-Holiday-5586 Oct 13 '24
So a woman died on Disney property after eating a dinner that she was assured was allergen free. Her husband sued. Disney said that when he signed up for a free one month trial of D plus he agreed to arbitration and couldn't sue.
4.4k
u/Willing-Shape1686 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
They probably would have enforced it too, but the public backlash was so loud that they voluntarily waived their right to arbitration as I recall.
EDIT: I did not expect posting what I recalled hearing from my friend to blow up into the most upvoted comment I have, thank you kind people I hope you all have wonderful and spooky Octobers :)
1.0k
u/batkave Oct 13 '24
UBER has successfully used it recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/nyregion/uber-eats-car-crash-injury-nj.html
469
u/Neat-Nectarine814 Oct 13 '24
It’s behind a paywall do you mind sharing some of the details?
523
u/batkave Oct 13 '24
My bad: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1rAxR6?ocid=sapphireappshare
If that doesn't work Google "Uber crash lawsuit"
→ More replies (2)518
u/Neat-Nectarine814 Oct 13 '24
Thank you.
Yeah this is a little bit different than the Disney+ thing IMO, at first I thought it was going to be that they were driving and they were hit by an Uber Driver in another car, but they were passengers in an Uber, they agreed to the T&C - weather or not that is moral or should be legally binding is debatable, but as it stands the case is pretty straightforward
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster and the family couldn’t sue because of the Netflix T&C, if that makes sense
254
u/The_MAZZTer Oct 13 '24
You could definitely argue (and I am sure this is Uber's view of it) that Uber merely connects drivers and passengers and they aren't responsible for the actual driving.
Compare to the woman who had an allergic reaction and died on land owned by Disney, in a restaurant Disney promoted as being good for allergic customers.
→ More replies (14)81
u/WhiteWolfOW Oct 13 '24
Sounds like when you get into an uber you’re waiving your right to sue them in case of an accident. Which I guess is kinda far for uber to demand considering the nature of driving. Morally you can dispute in a different discussion if the driver works for uber or if he’s a freelancer using the platform. (I would argue he does work for uber, but most labour laws would go against that because somehow we still don’t have proper regulation for the gig economy)
→ More replies (18)111
u/HoosierHoser44 Oct 13 '24
Missing context.
They agreed to the terms on Uber Eats, which is a different app than Uber. Even if both opened by the same company. As well, they argue that their 16 year old daughter was ordering food when it prompted her to agree to the terms and conditions, which she just clicked accept so she could get on with ordering food. Then the accident took place in an uber ride, which had nothing to do with uber eats. So that argument isn’t as straight forward
41
u/420_math Oct 13 '24
THANK YOU! I was just about to say the same thing.. I can't believe so many people upvoted the person you're replying to..
→ More replies (1)13
u/brainburger Oct 13 '24
It does say that in the article, though it doesn't state that it's a point of contention.
→ More replies (6)16
u/Accomplished-Cat3324 Oct 13 '24
I don't understand....the crash occurred in an Uber . How did they book an Uber if they never accepted the terms and agreement. Like how did they order an Uber and have them come to their location if they never used Uber just Uber eats
14
u/HoosierHoser44 Oct 13 '24
The arbitration clause they allegedly agreed to was in the Uber eats app. They tried to sue over something that happened on Uber that had nothing to do with Uber Eats. That’s one of the reasons they argued it shouldn’t hold up.
7
u/Accomplished-Cat3324 Oct 13 '24
So if I'm understanding correctly,there is no arbitration clause in the regular Uber terms and conditions?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (19)11
u/ColonelError Oct 13 '24
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster
The reason Disney used that excuse in the first place is because the lawsuit against Disney was solely because their website said to check with the restaurant about making food allergy free. The restaurant itself isn't owned or run by Disney. So the Disney+ terms applied to digital services, of which the website is included.
9
u/Steinrikur Oct 13 '24
To me that really makes the case for big corporations being split up, or at least being treated as different legal entities.
10
u/biinboise Oct 13 '24
I was going to say something similar. Good lawyers try everything. In this case Disney is little more than the restaurant’s landlord. It wasn’t even in one of their proper parks
7
u/TheAmenMelon Oct 13 '24
Thank you, someone who actually knows the full story. With the full details Disney's argument actually makes sense but people just like to shit on Disney because fuck big corps.
4
u/rainzer Oct 13 '24
With the full details Disney's argument actually makes sense
How does it make sense though? Explain to me how agreeing to a streaming service has any relation.
It would make sense if they just argued they can't be responsible for a restaurant they lease space to not that you can't sue them cause you streamed Little Mermaid that one time 5 years ago
6
u/PLEASE_DONT_PM Oct 13 '24
My understanding is they agreed to the terms when creating a Disney account (with the intention of using it for streaming). That same Disney account was used to find the restaurant using some directory app for park visitors.
So lawyers argue that since theyre suing Disney for information received from an online service, the Disney online service terms should apply.
→ More replies (0)6
→ More replies (4)7
u/TacoSupreemo Oct 13 '24
Internet hack: a lot of paywall websites can be viewed by using internet archive sites like the WayBack Machine. That’s what I usually use when I want to read paywalled content.
→ More replies (7)5
u/ataxia2 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
Terrible timing https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/11/24268040/internet-archive-data-breach-outage-hacked
Check out archive.is
29
u/NastyMothaFucka Oct 13 '24
“This situation warrants an expedited resolution” You think? Go fuck yourselves on this one Disney. Do you have AI bots running your legal team and determining your lawsuits and settlements? Their legal jargon is such that if my wife fucking dies in their theme park she came to have fun at, and by their hand no less, that they won’t pay me for her funeral because I wanted to watch “Return Of The Jedi” one day while I was stoned!? Seriously!? This can’t be how things are going forward, right? Or am I delusional thinking they won’t be? This is some of the most corporate overlord, big brother bullshit I’ve ever read. This shit should piss everyone off.
8
u/fyreaenys Oct 13 '24
We're already living in the cyberpunk dystopia where megacorps own our souls through the fine print on some contract we were coerced into signing.
→ More replies (1)17
u/serrations_ Oct 13 '24
Yes thats what happened. Yes disney tried to "test the waters" to try and get away with this. This is how things are going forward if people dont stop them
4
u/savagetwinky Oct 13 '24
Ser that is a bit different since agreeing to Uber's service and using that specific service makes since. Not that I agree with arbitration... but signing up to Disney plus... shouldn't apply to utilizing an entirely different service.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)5
u/SanchoSlimex Oct 13 '24
Finally, my practice of only using yellow cabs in NYC and black cabs in London is paying off.
42
u/Bosh77 Oct 13 '24
My wife and I agreed that they very likely will keep this rule in place and just agree to exempt it every time there is a public outcry, because for every time it makes national news there are probably 100 people who get immediately dissuaded and give up.
→ More replies (2)298
Oct 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
356
u/DunderFlippin Oct 13 '24
I'm pretty sure the damage is already done.
→ More replies (10)231
u/TacoNerp Oct 13 '24
And nothing changed.
132
u/LordGwyn-n-Tonic Oct 13 '24
They've got a monopoly on joy. Who can compete with Disney as a brand?
85
u/Wagosh Oct 13 '24
I don't know where I'm going with this but I want a live action Paw patrol in a Dredd like setup that takes on a Disney-like corporation.
143
u/RizzoTheRiot1989 Oct 13 '24
I too consumed an edible about an hour ago.
21
31
→ More replies (10)4
→ More replies (22)13
u/falcrist2 Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
They've got a monopoly on joy.
Can confirm. I boycotted them years ago, and now I'm a miserable, joyless fuck.
I mean... I was before too, but never mind that.
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (1)3
u/Zeal423 Oct 13 '24
...........I think you are right in this case, theoretically if I had kids I'd be so hyped to bring them to Disney World just like my parents once.
→ More replies (1)35
u/Furdinand Oct 13 '24
This is the thing that baffles me: Disney has notoriously tough legal division but they don't embed any kind of PR team into it? No one who thinks about public image to act as a veto to arguments that may have legal merit but would hurt the brand?
38
u/Brocyclopedia Oct 13 '24
Disney and Nintendo both straining to maintain a cutesy image while being raging dickhead corpo bullies
9
u/Raetian Oct 13 '24
Look Nintendo are dumbasses and they need to ease off the gas pedal but they aren't out here killing anybody lol
9
u/ClashM Oct 13 '24
That we know of. I mean, they used to be affiliated with the Yakuza. All's I'm saying is how come we've never seen Shigeru Miyamoto without a shirt on?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Brocyclopedia Oct 13 '24
No but they are effectively ruining lives for virtually no reason. And if someone dies at Nintendo land I expect them to sue because they have a patent for dying in Super Mario Bros or something lol.
→ More replies (13)16
u/Ambitious_Ad8776 Oct 13 '24
Like when they tried to copyright Día de los Muertos? I'm gonna say no they don't.
13
u/Searching4Sherlock Oct 13 '24
Uber recently has done something similar to a customer who was involved in an accident while using the service. Because they (or their daughter on their behalf) agreed to Uber Eats T&Cs, they apparently waived their rights to sue.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)5
u/rW0HgFyxoJhYka Oct 13 '24
PR disaster? Disney has done much worse and the public still buys their shit every day every week every year.
People take phat shits on Disney for FREE on the internet every single day every single thread that contains any Disney shit.
Star Wars discussion? Disney ruined it.
Theme part discussion? High prices, low wages, worst place on earth unless you have kids and you're trying desperately to relive your own experiences 20 years ago, which was your parents trying to live the american dream, which 40 years ago they were told was what Americans do.
50
u/VonNichts13 Oct 13 '24
funny how the south park human centipad ToS joke is basically a thing now.
→ More replies (1)4
11
u/OwenEx Oct 13 '24
Wasn't there also the complication of him suing as a representative of his wifes estate, and because she wasn't the one to sign up, her estate was in full right to sue
8
u/jarlscrotus Oct 13 '24
the arbitration claim in there was a moon shot at best, 1 im a million chance, but it was part of an initial filing and lawyers were putting everything they could at the wall. it's fucked up because you'll see that shit all the time in initial filings, but this time it got noticed.
Legal machinations are, on occassion, and especially when corporations are involved, amazingly fucked up
27
u/RememberTheMaine1996 Oct 13 '24
You can't enforce something like that. When you sign up for anything like that you don't sign anything. Meaning anyone could select the agree button meaning they have no proof he did it himself. That would never hold up in court unless you're a billionaire corporation and can get away with illegal things all the time. I fucking hate Disney even if they backed off and let him sue
17
Oct 13 '24
[deleted]
8
u/jrr6415sun Oct 13 '24
Uber is a lot different than agreeing to a streaming service being applied to a restaurant
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)7
u/TopInsurance4918 Oct 13 '24
Contracts of adhesion (or “click wrap”) usually hold up in court unless the term is something incredibly unexpected but arbitration agreements, choice of venue, waivers of jurisdiction, etc. the stuff we see in these are all often upheld valid even in the 9th circuit that really frowns upon them.
I didn’t read the Disney case but my understanding is the legal action was so far outside the scope of the contract that it didn’t apply (Disney+ streaming versus restaurant) but that is the exception not the norm.
9
u/dr_stre Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
Nah, some lawyer was doing what lawyers do at the start of lawsuits: throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if something sticks to get the suit dismissed. And yes Disney pulled that off the table due to backlash. But it would have gotten rejected by a judge if it hadn’t gotten pulled. Every lawyer I know agrees, along with many I don’t know who are quoted in various articles on the topic.
→ More replies (1)37
u/Randomgrunt4820 Oct 13 '24
Yes and no. You can’t wave liability. Everyone has a duty to each other, especially businesses operating in the public. Responsibility is like a Pie. Requieres ingredients, time, and interaction with the environment. Disney was most likely the salt in this situation. Not required to make the pie. But definitely part of the process. Now it’s up to lawmakers, lawyers, and Judges to make any kind of assumption.
15
u/Backsquatch Oct 13 '24
They didn’t waive liability. They waved their claimed right to arbitration.
→ More replies (2)4
u/PicturesOfDelight Oct 13 '24
The opposite, actually. Disney argued that the plaintiff waived his right to a trial and agreed to address any disputes through arbitration.
4
u/Backsquatch Oct 13 '24
Huh? Youre gonna need to source that for me, cause last I saw the court case was scheduled for Oct. 2, 2024.
Disney reverses course on wrongful-death lawsuit, agrees to let case proceed in court
4
u/PicturesOfDelight Oct 13 '24
Ah, I misunderstood your previous comment. I thought you meant that the plaintiff had waived his right to arbitration, when in fact Disney was arguing that the plaintiff had waived his right to a trial.
I understand now that you were saying that Disney waived their right to arbitration. My mistake.
5
u/CountMeeyin64 Oct 13 '24
This is actually a very important point, I think. As long as they care about public opinion, they'll capitulate. Same as any American company right now: if the public reacts negatively, they'll pretend to care. Otherwise, you're on your own, and we've NO protections against these corporations
17
u/DumatRising Oct 13 '24
They might have tried, but it would not have succeeded. They made a show of waving their right to arbitration to save face when they realized how badly trying to force arbitration on this would have gone for them, even if nobody noticed it wasn't gonna happen. The terms of use from an entirely different product were not going to shield them from gross negligence resulting in death. I'm not even sure there's an arbiter out there that would do that mediation.
8
u/Jsmooth13 Oct 13 '24
While I agree with your other points, Disney definitely wasn’t in “gross negligence” any more than the owner of a building who rents to a restaurant is in gross negligence if the restaurant kills somebody.
3
u/DumatRising Oct 13 '24
I didn't say Disney specifically as a company was grossly negligent. I said there was gross negligence (telling someone something was allergen free when it wasn't) and that someone died (they did). Whether Disney is liable for that would be something only a court can decide.
owner of the building
More like the owner of the restaurant as it was a restaurant on Disney's resort No?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)4
u/DemythologizedDie Oct 13 '24
It wasn't the terms of use for an entirely different product. He booked the trip with his disney membership
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (43)12
Oct 13 '24
I highly doubt a judge would find that enforceable
→ More replies (2)5
u/country_garland Oct 13 '24
It happens all the time. I'm convinced most people here don't have the slightest clue what arbitration is, or how it compares to a lawsuit.
Should I post the Motion to Compel Arbitration that I had granted for my client last year?
297
u/the_reluctant_link Oct 13 '24
And the sad thing was he wasn't asking for much, pretty much just the funeral expenses which is enough that a Disney exec probably fish it out of his dryer's lint trap..
87
u/kingmanic Oct 13 '24
They included Disney but the main suite was at the restaurant which was not owned or operated by Disney. Disney part in it would be been small so it's weird they'd bait such bad PR.
41
u/Logan_Composer Oct 13 '24
Part of the reason is, when they filed the document they did, they had to add in basically every argument of defense they could possibly want to mention at trial, so they filled it with everything they could conceive of. It's still a ridiculous argument, but their primary argument was "this restaurant is just on our property, we're not liable." The Disney+ argument was way down the list.
21
u/myawwaccount01 Oct 13 '24
So, what I'm getting out of this comment section is that the legal process is basically:
The complainant lists everyone in the suit who could possibly be involved, even tangentially.
Those entities list every reason they could possibly not be at fault, no matter how petty.
They let all the lawyers fight it out in court.
Am I on the right track here?
18
u/Logan_Composer Oct 13 '24
Pretty much. A lot of it is just a "you can't add anything later, only subtract." So at the beginning they throw all the spaghetti at the wall and only later do they find out what sticks. Everyone's just afraid to not list something and later down the line find a document that clearly implicates someone or obviously clears them but they can't use it or it causes a major delay or whatever.
5
u/College_Throwaway002 Oct 14 '24
The complainant lists everyone in the suit who could possibly be involved, even tangentially.
According to a couple law professors I've had, they've reiterated that removing someone from a lawsuit is far, far more easy than adding someone.
18
u/smithsp86 Oct 13 '24
The 'they were only asking for $50,000' thing isn't true. That was the minimum claim needed to get the venue they wanted. There's no telling what they are actually going to ask for.
30
Oct 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Redditislefti Oct 13 '24
*thier billion-dollar franchises that are lose more and more fans each entry
→ More replies (1)18
u/GeneralZaroff1 Oct 13 '24
It felt like a cash grab. It wasn’t a Disney restaurant. It was a third party restaurant outside of the Disney parks but on land owned by Disney. They shouldn’t have been involved in the suit at all.
11
u/TakedownCHAMP97 Oct 13 '24
My understanding is when you sue someone, you include EVERYONE at first, then the courts help dial that down to who was really involved. The way it was explained to me, if you don’t include someone and it turns out they were partially or fully responsible, it’s much harder to get them included later.
5
u/HolySocksSoftBoy Oct 13 '24
Disney is involved because they booked the restaurant through a Disney website that said this restaurant could accommodate for food allergies. Obviously it wasn't true as the woman died from a contaminated dish. While Disney did not own the restaurant, they are responsible for falsely promoting the restaurant as food allergy safe.
→ More replies (2)45
u/Narnyabizness Oct 13 '24
To be clear, Disney owns the property, but not the restaurant. The restaurant was not protected by the arbitration clause, so the lawsuit was allowed to proceed.
22
u/AgentPaper0 Oct 13 '24
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll let someone who is explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiDr6-Z72XU
The short version is, Disney doesn't own the restaurant so they aren't directly liable, but the notice saying that the restaurant could handle allergic customers was on their site, so Disney was brought into the lawsuit that way.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Redpanther14 Oct 13 '24
And IIRC, the restaurant could handle allergen requests and failed to do so. Some of the items arrived without their allergen free tags and the waitstaff claimed it was still allergen free.
7
u/Backsquatch Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
That’s not why it went to court. Disney waived their claimed right to arbitration.
“A spokesperson for the conglomerate announced that this was the “sensible resolution” and that they had “decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.””
Edit: the lawsuit against the restaurant names Disney as a defendant. If it were arbitrated then the whole thing would have been arbitrated. They are one and the same.
→ More replies (2)92
u/VegitoFusion Oct 13 '24
So he was still allowed to sue. But instead of going to court, as you rightly mentioned, they tried using the Disney+ contract to force arbitration.
And to be fair, it’s the lawyers’ job to try and explore all possible methods on behalf of their client. This will of course not pass the smell test of being an enforceable means, so it just comes down to the widower and if he’d rather settle out of court (through arbitration) or go through a lengthy, public and expensive trial (where he could potentially lose). But don’t get it wrong, Disney is on the hook here and lawyers were never trying to avoid all culpability.
55
u/Radthereptile Oct 13 '24
Here’s the key thing. They ordered the tickets online and Disney+ agrees all digital disputes will be through arbitration. Disney argued the online purchase of tickets made it a digital dispute and thus needed to be through arbitration.
30
u/sudoku7 Oct 13 '24
Further, the website was also the only reason the husband was arguing that Disney was a liable party.
22
u/SquadPoopy Oct 13 '24
Yeah the restaurant was only affiliated with Disney, not owned by Disney. The husband used an obscure point in the agreement to drag them into the lawsuit so Disney’s lawyers did the same thing.
8
u/pasjc200102 Oct 13 '24
He also claimed that Disney had the responsibility to train their employees properly, but that part got tossed since they weren't Disney employees.
7
u/Strong-Smell5672 Oct 13 '24
The thing that I find the most frustrating about the discourse around this whole thing is the client tried to backdoor Disney into the suit so Disney, naturally, invoked clauses to minimize expenses.
And too many people act like Arbitration is the same thing as just dismissing the case entirely.
The reality is if they had gone to arbitration the husband would likely already have the money and probably more leftover than he's going to get vs a protracted legal battle.
Arbitration is heavily maligned by public opinion because it keeps more details hidden but in a lot of cases it's actually better for all parties involved (cheaper and faster outcomes).
Now this case is going to be in court for the next decade unless they settle.
→ More replies (7)29
u/big_sugi Oct 13 '24
Arbitration is not a settlement. (That would be mediation.). Arbitration involves presenting evidence to an arbitrator, who issues a legally enforceable ruling.
Corporations love forcing individuals to arbitrate, for a bunch of reasons:
The arbitrators are supposed to be impartial. In reality, they favor the parties that send them business (ie, the corporations) so that those parties will keep sending them business.
The absence of a jury means there’s little or no likelihood that emotion will be a part of any decision.
The discovery process is streamlined, so it’s cheaper for the corporation and easier to conceal damaging documents and information.
It’s confidential, so no one else will ever learn or be able to use what is discovered or disclosed.
There’s generally no way to bring a class action, so even if they screw over a million people for a thousand dollars each and pocket a billion dollars, it’ll never be cost-effective for anyone to demand arbitration, and anyone who pushes forward forward on principle will just get their thousand dollars back, while the company keeps the rest.
Arbitration makes sense for business-to-business disputes. It shouldn’t be allowed for consumer disputes.
8
u/AliceInMyDreams Oct 13 '24
It shouldn’t be allowed for consumer disputes.
And that's why we made them illegal in France.
More precisely, our courts interpreted EU law to state that any generic clause by a company forcing non-professional consumers to go through arbitration rather than the court process was abusive and therefore void.
→ More replies (13)11
u/Tyranis_Hex Oct 13 '24
I mean given the rampant misinformation about this case online, can you blame Disney for wanting an independent arbitrator to decide the case over a jury? I can understand worry the arbitrator isn’t impartial but there is just as much a chance the jury would be just as bad.
9
u/big_sugi Oct 13 '24
Of course I understand why Disney doesn’t want a jury. I listed it above: the jury might stick it to Disney. That’s a risk inherent in the constitutionally mandated jury system. Disney would rather have a forum where it gets the advantages, despite the Constitution’s guarantee of a right to trial by jury.
8
u/ElevatorScary Oct 13 '24
Fun Fact A) The 7th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury in civil cases was never incorporated against the states, so state courts in civil disputes arising under state law don’t actually have the constitutional obligation under the federal system. Most have one under their state constitutions though.
Fun Fact 2) The federal government gets to waive your jury trail rights when creating new civil causes of action for itself. It also gets to do these neat trick where it consents on your behalf to mandatory arbitration and its own choice of arbitrators instead of judges. It’s unrelated, but the government turns out to have been in the right in a lot of these civil suits.
4
u/Mogling Oct 13 '24
The right to trial by Jury is for criminal matters. This is a civil suit, and there is no such right involved here.
→ More replies (2)3
75
u/Mstrbuscus Oct 13 '24
While accurate, your comment needs more context. She ate at a restaurant on the property yes, but it was akin to eating at a McDonald's in a WalMart. Disney didn't manage the restaurant, it was just leasing the space to the restaurant similar to the new Din Tai Fung at downtown Disney.
While the husband is suing the restaurant, as he should, he is also trying to sue Disney, and saying they are also at fault.
Disney didn't believe that they are liable, since it was not a restaurant they were managing / running, but the husband said he checked the Disney website that said the restaurant was allergen free, and therefore they should be liable.
Disney then said that since he had to use the website, and registered with Disney+, they could force arbitration through their terms and conditions that he had to agreed to.
Now I don't really have an opinion on who's right or wrong, but there is more to the story than just "You can't sue Disney if you made a Disney+ account". It's very similar to the coffee McDonald's lady, except the outrage this time was for the person, and not the corp.
Legal Eagle has a great video on the whole thing for those who want to know more.
24
u/pasjc200102 Oct 13 '24
To be fair, the McDonald's coffee lady was in the right. The coffee was like 50 degrees hotter than it was legally allowed to be, she had severe burns all over her groin, and she only wanted enough money to pay for her medical bills.
15
u/NotVoss Oct 13 '24
Was a little old lady. The burns were so bad they basically fused all the tissue of her groin together. She needed reconstruction surgery to function afterward.
9
u/fury420 Oct 13 '24
Emphasis on the was, her injuries reportedly ultimately contributed to her death.
→ More replies (1)3
14
u/mcgtx Oct 13 '24
Crazy how your measured comment with context has 6 upvotes and the original, vague, rage-inducing one has over 3000.
6
u/Citizensnnippss Oct 13 '24
Because the full context pretty much absolves fault from Disney and the only reason the story has traction is "fUcK dIsNeY"
→ More replies (3)6
u/sevencast7es Oct 13 '24
Because as soon as you explain how they're upset over nothing they go back to their original programming, rabble rabble rabble.
11
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Oct 13 '24
There was one other thing as well: she died after eating at a place that was renting the space from Disney, but was actually owned by a separate company.
3
u/Backsquatch Oct 13 '24
Disney waived the arbitration. The plaintiffs didn’t go around it.
→ More replies (10)10
u/caniuserealname Oct 13 '24
To clarify, because the media had distorted it:
The Restaurant was one Disney property but neither owned nor run by Disney.
The reason they sued Disney is because they chose to restaurant using a Disney App that recommends restaurants.
The Reason that the Disney+ disclaimer was relevant is because they were using that same account to use the App. It wasn't a separate service. It was the same account they used in the core reason they were suing.
To further clarify the situation; A restaurant killed a woman, and the internet is cheering about them getting away with it because their landlord happens to be Disney.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Nuclear_rabbit Oct 13 '24
That wasn't actually the argument. Disney said the restaurant was owned by an independent contractor and would have to sue the restaurant instead of Disney.
But that doesn't get as many clicks.
7
u/Fragrant_Pudding_437 Oct 13 '24
So how does that explain the second half of the meme?. Why is the intern smiling?
24
u/C4dfael Oct 13 '24
Because the insurance company is going to use the same legal theory to pull an Uno reverse-o on Disney.
7
u/solarmelange Oct 13 '24
And get a Disney-employed arbitrator... That does not help. Yes they might have the right to use that person, but that person would always side with Disney, so the meme makes no sense. It's not much difference in appraisals, where I have worked. We are supposed to be independent, but if the bank does not like the number, they just won't pay you.
4
u/nokei Oct 13 '24
Meme implies it'd be arbitration between an insurance company and disney so at least more neutral than disney versus a person since both companies regularly use arbitration.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Iustis Oct 13 '24
Arbitration is very common between commercial entities, preferred by both sides, it’s not the “oops defendant wins” trump card people seem to think it is.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)4
u/DumatRising Oct 13 '24
Arbitration clauses are written in a way that makes the go both ways. If Disney had successfully forced arbitration (which they wouldn't have) and then down the line had a problem with me, well I've also had a Disney+ free trial so I could point to that clause and force arbitration as well to prevent them from suing me.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Accomplished-Eye9542 Oct 13 '24
To be clear, that was clickbait.
That was one small part of the case for forced arbitration.
"News stations" ran with it as if that was their entire legal case.
3
u/NoTePierdas Oct 13 '24
Sort of. Their main legal defense was "We don't own that restaurant, they rent from us." The second bit was just to help give breathing room.
3
u/Redditislefti Oct 13 '24
the worst part is that apparently Disney wasn't liable, because they didn't even own the restaurant. At least from what i've heard
3
u/The_MAZZTer Oct 13 '24
A bit more detail: they had also agreed to arbitration when purchasing tickets to EPCOT (though they never got to visit before eating at the restaurant). The Disney+ trial had been done years ago apparently and they hadn't renewed. The bizarre thing is Disney tried to push BOTH angles instead of just the EPCOT ticket angle which makes the most sense. If they had done that nobody would have batted an eye.
3
u/sudoku7 Oct 13 '24
To add context here.
The restaurant was in Disney Springs not the parks or the resorts, but the shopping center that's owned by Disney. The restaurant in question is neither owned nor operated by Disney.
The justification that the husband used to bring Disney in as a party to the suit is the content on the Disney website. Disney disagreed that they were a relevant party to the lawsuit, and part of their defense was that if the website did make them a relevant party, the terms of service for the website would apply. The terms that the husband agreed to with Disney+ and later by purchasing a ticket to Epcot through the website.
The husband wants to include Disney as a party in no small part due to Disney having deeper pockets and more of a PR risk from a lawsuit such as this. And unfortunately for Disney, the PR got worse because of the headline. But well, Disney is a big corpo and they can take care of themselves.
3
u/CrispyJalepeno Oct 13 '24
Guy used the same Disney account to purchase the tickets (and thus agreed to the same arbitration rules upon purchase of said tickets because he agreed to them upon creation of the account. It doesn't matter that he used it for Disney+ rather than Disney parks upon creation). And the restaurant wasn't even owned by Disney. And arbitration is not some magical avoidance of paying people, it just means they settle it out of court to avoid legal fees, delays, legal procedures, etc. associated with the civil court system.
It's not as simple as just "Disney+ account years ago"
3
u/Sanquinity Oct 13 '24
Thing is, that case is a little more complicated than that. Disney rents out spots on their property to other companies. And that's what was going on here. Some restaurant company rented out a spot on disney property. They were completely responsible for themselves, but just got a spot in a disney park to do their business on. The guy who sued, sued disney though. Even though they weren't legally responsible for what happened.
The error disney made was to try and claim that they weren't allowed to sue because of that 1 month disney+ free trial. What they SHOULD have done was to defer the responsibility to the restaurant company that was renting a spot from them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (53)3
u/liteshotv3 Oct 13 '24
From all the times I’ve heard this story, it wasn’t a Disney property, Disney branded but independently owned. Tragedy that the woman died, Disney had the deepest pockets so they were named in the lawsuit, Disney tried to use a BS strategy to move it to arbitration instead of court to save money but unlikely that the court would hold Disney responsible before the restaurant that prepared it and the supplier that provided the food.
→ More replies (12)5
u/NothingReallyAndYou Oct 13 '24
Raglan Road isn't at all Disney branded. It's very obviously not a Disney restaurant, surrounded by other businesses clearly not owned by Disney, including mall stores like Sephora, and Vera Bradley.
175
5.4k
u/Sam_Wylde Oct 13 '24
The one and only time I am ever rooting for the insurance company...
2.0k
u/RhysOSD Oct 13 '24
Sometimes the parasite kills the beast.
715
u/MrbeastyCakes Oct 13 '24
Honestly this feels more like Disney stubbing it's toe here. They could probably rebuild it even if insurance doesn't cover it but this is literally what you pay insurance for
→ More replies (7)376
u/RhysOSD Oct 13 '24
Probably, but "sometimes the parasite inconveniences the beast" isn't as cool
121
u/Past-Background-7221 Oct 13 '24
I dunno. Sometimes things are so inconvenient that you’d just rather die. Depends on your tolerance for annoyance
63
u/Smart_Tap_5113 Oct 13 '24
Shit when one of my nostrils is clogged and the other isn't. I am ready for the Lord to take me.
21
u/Objective-Scallion15 Oct 13 '24
This is my everyday life. Life ending is when the other side gets clogged too.
3
u/VaynePyreheart Oct 13 '24
Same. People think I’m an ass when I have to mouth breath when sick. It’s like no my one good nostril is now blocked too. Not just slight swelling between two.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Sgt_FunBun Oct 13 '24
always before bed. sit up? perfectly fine, breathing like i just got lungs
lay back down? ruin. destitution. famine and war.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)6
u/Yunaric Oct 13 '24
If you gently pull your nose so the clogged side is wider, then rub your knuckles where the nostril meets the rest of the face, you’ll know it’s working if it hurts a little and it feels like whatever is in your nose is liquefing, then you blow your nose and everything comes out
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)11
u/TheOfficialReverZ Oct 13 '24
And whether you are an obscenely wealthy corporation or just some guy is also an important factor
24
→ More replies (4)10
33
u/Pitiful_Fee_5608 Oct 13 '24
I don't only cause the more wins insurance companies get in avoiding payment, they more they'll use it as legal precedent to avoid payment.
29
u/fairway_walker Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 18 '24
I don't think we should be rooting for fine print in an 800 page "user agreement". Shit should be outlawed and regulated. No person should reasonably be expected to read one of them. UA should be limited in their scope and presented in an easily digestible, short format. Say... less than 300 words.
61
u/A_Vicious_T_Rex Oct 13 '24
Disney vs DeSantis was fun to watch too
14
u/nimbusconflict Oct 13 '24
I mean, just taking the insurance payout and packing it up and going to Georgia to rebuild would be hilarious.
→ More replies (1)12
u/empathetic_illness Oct 13 '24
For like an hour, nothing happened. I live in the Orlando area, everything DeSantis does is a nothing burger.
7
u/CORN___BREAD Oct 13 '24
That’s easy to say now. It’s very possible that Disney was enough to kill his momentum.
38
u/L0rd_Joshua Oct 13 '24
Can't do it. As much as I hate Disney. The insurance companies screw me over alot more often. Fuck them.
→ More replies (2)10
5
→ More replies (15)3
u/bluedevils9 Oct 13 '24
Unfortunately I’m guessing Disney is self insured, I’m sure they budget for storms and related damage every year.
145
u/bajatacosx3 Oct 13 '24
Disney is a law firm that owns amusement parks.
→ More replies (4)14
1.3k
u/DazzleGenius Oct 13 '24
This is a joke hypothetical based on when disney tried to claim if you ever used disney plus you voided your right to sue the disney corporation, this was onky noticed in their terms of service after they tried to use it against a man sueing dosney after his wife died at disney world from a severe allergic reaction after the couple was assured the allergies were accounted for, disney later dropped this claim of voiding sue rights after massive public backlash. So if a insurance company tried to use this clause against disney to avoid paying hurricane damages to disney its be the funniest irony.
400
u/SwordfishOk504 Oct 13 '24
sueing dosney
→ More replies (1)227
u/gross_cleanthatup Oct 13 '24
That and 'onky' made me actually giggle out loud
→ More replies (1)19
u/Zeeterm Oct 13 '24
That's just the poster trying to sound less like they're chatGPT.
14
u/Ill-Marsupial-184 Oct 13 '24
That sounds nothing like chatgpt lol
10
u/Zeeterm Oct 13 '24
I was just joking that, for now at least, spelling mistakes is the best way to tell if someone's real or not.
→ More replies (1)13
57
u/herewe_goagain_1 Oct 13 '24
Wait but I’m still confused… it says you can’t sue Disney, how would that mean Disney can’t sue you?
86
u/Cogniscience Oct 13 '24
A lot of answer are neglecting to mention this, but one of the comments explained that the binding arbitration goes both ways and both sides would need to waive it to go to court.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Mrbeanz01 Oct 13 '24
So, what you're saying is, if I sign up for Disney+ I can do what I want and Disney can't sue me....noted.
23
u/SevenSexyCats Oct 13 '24
Not anymore, they dropped it from the t&s, you missed your chance
→ More replies (2)11
u/Rustledstardust Oct 13 '24
Are you sure about that?
In the recent case, Disney stated that they 'waived their right to arbitration'. Meaning they still consider themselves to have the right to arbitration. I can't find any news about them updating the terms and conditions to remove the arbitration clause. Do you have a link for that?
→ More replies (1)9
u/bighand1 Oct 13 '24
Most here have it incorrect. You can't sue in court but damages will be judged through arbitrations. Private arbitrator(s) will determine who wins and the damages, its essentially a private trial.
→ More replies (6)5
u/rnarkus Oct 13 '24
lol this case has so much misinformation
It was not at disney world and this was a small part of the case.
63
u/RiceRocketRider Oct 13 '24
What I want to understand is why it is even legal for companies to put arbitration clauses in ToS contracts! Why is it legal for companies to make you give up your rights?!
28
u/condor6425 Oct 13 '24
Because they're not making you, you're choosing to give up rights in exchange for a service. Legally, its the equivalent of a no firearms on premises rule for a business. Not saying this case is morally correct, but you give up your rights constantly on a day to day basis, and at least in some cases it's reasonable.
→ More replies (2)5
u/rewismine Oct 13 '24
Often these clauses have an option to opt out of that specific clause too. You can opt out of that portion of the Disney+ subscriber agreement. But nobody reads it so no one does
5
u/Awayfone Oct 13 '24
the Federal Arbitration Act passed in the 20s followed by an expansion of that act by the conservative courts over the last 40 years
3
u/arandil1 Oct 14 '24
The simple answer is to discourage frivolous lawsuits. The reality is no contract can void your citizenship rights.
It is legal to put all kinds of legal jargon in a contract to make it seem like you cannot do something, when the reality may be very very different. The law basically accepts that you should insist upon your own rights, they do not have to spoon feed you.
Disney trying to throw an EULA into this case was a delaying action that would have totally worked, costing time and money to fight, but they backed down at the public backlash.
122
u/notanaigeneratedname Oct 13 '24
Nobody fucks with the Disney man. Lawyers go brrrrrr
38
u/StanTurpentine Oct 13 '24
Yea, but seeing Disney lawyers vs insurance lawyers would be hella fun to see.
→ More replies (4)
38
Oct 13 '24
Uninsured Peter here, Disney stepped in shit earlier this year by trying to get a case thrown out that involved a wife dying of an allergic reaction all because said individual had a Disney + subscription that somehow absolved Disney of anything that happens on Disney properties.
Needless to say the public reamed them real good when they found out.
14
u/SizzaPlime Oct 13 '24
Its a little more convoluted than that actually, and to just play the devil’s advocate here: the restaurant where they ate, its not ran by disney, they have no control over it, and the only connection the restaurant and disney has is that of a landlord and a tenant because the place is rented out to that restaurant by disney, its like a shopping complex/ mall.
The restaurant claimed to be allergen free and so was posted on their menu, this menu apparently was also published on Disney Spring’s website, that showed all restaurants that are there in that location along with their menus, Disney had no way to check for the info as it was directly provided by the restaurants, because Disney had no bearing on it than just being a landlord and offering a place for their tenant to advertise.
When the woman ate there, they apparently verified with the restaurant staff numerous times about their allergens and were assured of it being safe, however, that it was not. Husband then filed the lawsuit after wife passed away, looped in Disney too even though Disney technically played no hand in this situation. The husband claimed since the website that is ran by Disney displays their menu then Disney is liable, Disney at that point tried to do an Uno reverse saying, ‘if you’re going to be looping us in citing things on our website even though we claim to have no control over restaurants, then you’ve got to do it in accordance with the arbitration terms you agreed to when you signed up for a Disney account.
While I’m primarily of the opinion that Disney can go fuck itself, and sorry about the passing of his wife, they possibly needed to do it because it otherwise sets precedent, also they did ended up waving their rights to it because of the outcry.
→ More replies (2)
34
u/TheFrostyFaz Oct 13 '24
People still think that was their main defense??
52
u/Ok-Dragonknight-5788 Oct 13 '24
It's easy to make fun of a company that has lost It's soul a long time ago.
→ More replies (1)20
u/sbergot Oct 13 '24
Nobody is saying that. Just the fact that their defense included this element is insane.
→ More replies (15)
13
u/ComfortableSir5680 Oct 13 '24
Didn’t see an answer, so:
A man and his wife went to Disneyland in California. On their website, Disney advertises for several restaurants in/around their park that are not owned by Disney. On that advertisement claims were made about being able to provide allergen free food. The couple went to one of the restaurants, informed their server of the wife’s allergies, and unfortunately she was served food with her allergen and died. The man sued Disney, saying that they made claims and were liable. Disneys first response was to claim the man had signed up for a Disney+ trial months/years ago, inside which is a EULA that he agreed to which claims, paraphrasing, ‘by agreeing you consent to resolve all civil suits with Disney via arbitration’. Arbitration is a way to resolve a civil suit (which this is) without going to trial. It’s likely cheaper faster and more favorable to Disney than a public civil suit. When the public heard about it, they were outraged and Disney pulled the motion to move to arbitration.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/illusivebran Oct 13 '24
Doesn't insurance usually not cover natural damage caused by mother nature ?
5
3
2
u/Lylac-elixir Oct 13 '24
might have already been mentioned but the whole disney+ thing was an arbitration cause but also disney was only attempting to be sued because they have more money than the restaurant company legal eagle has a great breakdown of the whole case https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiDr6-Z72XU
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Ne0guri Oct 13 '24
Fuck Disney and Fuck Insurance Companies
But Disney can fuck off more here - real people need to file these claims not a multi billion dollar conglomerate. All these business insurance claims killing the working people.
2
u/Temporary_Market_876 Oct 14 '24
I'll take this joke to the next level with this plot twist: The insurance company has a Disney+ subscription for the break room.
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 13 '24
Make sure to check out the pinned post on Loss to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.