13 ms·

Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms

667 points by fortran77 2y ago

wdb 2y ago
If we didn't need more reasons not to go Disney World or support Disney. I can't say they have created amazing content recently. Most of the interesting content is not produced by them.
fortran77 2y ago
Wow! > In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console. One month free trial! But the Disney Lawyers found it. See also Newsday article: https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant-carle-place-physician-allergy-gcgv997y?utm_source=tw_nd https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant...
- justahuman74 2y ago
  If this argument actually works, then laws need serious change
  - fortran77 2y ago
    Agreed. They should at least say that an artibration clause in a contract can never apply to anything that's not covered by that particular contract for that particular transaction.
  - newzisforsukas 2y ago
    Seems like any reasonable court would find it unenforceable, but who knows
    - garciasn 2y ago
      As someone who just went through a messy divorce planned for the entirety of the 18m affair my ex-wife was having, there is no court on this earth that I would ever say is reasonable.
      - janniehater 2y ago
        I'm sorry to hear that, I hope things are looking brighter
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    As in everything law related, that depends on the parties involved.
- djmips 2y ago
  How can trial terms be enforced in perpetuity!? And the park and restaurant has nothing to do with Disney+ Streaming.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    The article is just misunderstanding a bit. It's not about Disney+ Streaming, the tickets to the park were bought through the Disney+ account, that's where the relation is (according to Disney, at least).
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      I'm correcting this everywhere I said it - I'm wrong and the article is right. The park tickets are separate from access to the mall, so they're just as unrelated to the death as the video streaming was...
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  This News day article is disingenuous. If you look at the filing (someone else in the thread has posted the documents), Disney is saying that the husband bought the tickets to Disneyland (where the restaurant is, and without which they couldn't have accessed it) using his Disney+ account, and that the ticket purchase includes terms that he explicitly agreed to which re-iterate that the Disney+ terms of use apply as well. So there is some plausible argument that the terms apply to services they received at Disneyland, it's not "yes, but he has also subscribed to our streaming service". I still hope that this doesn't pass muster - your right to seek a lawsuit for grievous injury or death shouldn't be covered by some checkbox you clicked on a site.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    That's incorrect, the restaurant is at Disney Springs which is a mall outside Disney's parks and doesn't require tickets. [0][1] [0]https://touringplans.com/blog/disney-in-a-minute-what-is-disney-springs/ https://touringplans.com/blog/disney-in-a-minute-what-is-dis... [1]https://www.disneysprings.com/dining/ https://www.disneysprings.com/dining/
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Oh, you're right and I was completely wrong. So Disney really is just trying to hold someone to a contract for a completely unrelated service...
  - fortran77 2y ago
    Don't spread misinformation. The fact is don't need a park ticket to enter Raglin Road. It's on WDW property, but it's outside a park gate.
madbicyclist 2y ago
Is it really worth dodging one lawsuit at the cost of the impending disgust from thousands of potential customers?
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Disney isn't worried about a few thousand customers, and most of them either won't hear of this or won't know how else to occupy their kids' attention
- herpdyderp 2y ago
  Thousand of customers is nothing to Disney
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  I feel in my bones that sometime in the last five years, large enough companies have lost the fear of pissing off the public. Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act. Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted. We're about to enter a new phase of powerlessness.
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    > Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted Eg: Boeing.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act I know it's tempting, but don't blame "consumers". For one thing, it's mathematically impossible for people to be appropriately outraged over every instance of corporate evil. There's too much of it. If you want to assign blame, maybe put it on corporate media (like Disney lol). They're the ones who sold us every war, every atrocity we're complicit in, and covered up or distracted from the most important crimes which enabled everything else.
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      And yet, not doing business with disney is so easy. All you have to do is not spend $10/month on their streaming thing. Or not spend thousands on a trip to their park thing. Or not pay a $20 premium for their toy things. I can't recall ever giving disney money as an adult. And I think the last time my family did was buying a DVD copy of Finding Nemo some time around 2008. So the outrage threshold to "do something" in this case is "barely outraged at all". In any case, going after one company is a more, not less, realistic target than attacking "corporate media" as a whole.
Animats 2y ago
Need to query the California PUC about whether having signed up for Google relieves them from liabilty if you're hit by a Waymo.
- amluto 2y ago
  Or whether having ever done business with Tesla prevents one from suing Tesla if someone else’s autopiloting car hits them. Presumably a sensible court would hold that no possible interpretation of a contract affects a lawsuit unrelated to the scope of the product or services provided under that contract.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    Tesla doesn't have driverless cars, so I'm not worried. The drivers are responsible if the software shits itself.
    - scarby2 2y ago
      This will absolutely change in the next decade.
      - lpapez 2y ago
        As announced by their CEO in the previous decade...
        bee_rider 2y ago
        I think they must mean the second sentence will happen in the next decade. Tesla releasing a self driving car… probably not so likely.
        scarby2 2y ago
        Given that other companies have self driving cars operating (but not for sale) today (I've taken rides in them). I think Tesla might have to accept they need to use more sensors, and maybe even licence someone else's tech but Tesla will not accept being the only "luxury" automaker not offering self driving.
ggm 2y ago
Hamlet might have had a point. This feels very like a-moral application of years of legal training. On this basis, any transactions, of any nature which come with an Implied contract acceptance are going to be superseded by words which enable get-out-of-jail-free for all parent, associated, restructured companies, forever. Watch out when you sign the hotel bill. You just promised to give your body on death to the parent company's medical school. I doubt it's that simple but you would hope the justice system is going to tear this legal theory a new exit hole and not wash their hands first. Specificity is everything in a contract. Sweeping terms, perpetual licence would be a nightmare. (Not a lawyer, which will be obvious)
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I know binding arbitration is the new hotness, but it seems unlikely this is the first time a company has tried to link a generic “absolved-from-everything” clause to an unrelated incident.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    IANAL but seems like a text book example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      Wow, the example on that page is brilliant. To quote: > For instance, in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020) the Supreme Court of Canada found an arbitration clause requiring gig workers in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce was unconscionable and so void. LOL. Uber, again.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        “Inventing”!
    - ozim 2y ago
tyre 2y ago
imagine coming up with this idea, pitching it, and then going through with it i can imagine as a lawyer thinking of this jokingly, but to actually go through with it is wild
TillE 2y ago
The alleged point of arbitration clauses is to ease the burden on the courts, which is rather contradicted when lawyers choose to waste a judge's time with dumb arguments like this.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  The point of arbitration is to errode the rule of law and attack the state. Surplanting it with "company law" which is not supervised/vetoed indirectly by democratic voting. All other stated goals are lies, often ironically co-evolving to mimic the states already existing more efficient structures.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  From the plaintiff's response to this motion linked elsewhere, I'm thinking that Disney is somewhat compelled to file this motion in order to have any shot at arbitration being relevant at all. Their initial response to the lawsuit (included in the appendix of that plaintiff's response) is a pretty stock "we don't think we have liability here, it's on the restaurant" response. But the plaintiff response notes an aspect of law where a party willingly participating in a lawsuit without asserting their right to arbitration early is presumed to be waiving that right. So it sounds like Disney must produce some argument early in the proceedings that this should be removed to arbitration in order to preserve that possibility assuming that it is something that would be covered by the arbitration agreements. I'm not sure I buy how they connect their agreements specifically to transactions in this publicly accessible mall, but it seems like if they didn't make the attempt at all, they couldn't later make the attempt if later in the court process something came to light that indicated this should have been handled with arbitration.
blackoil 2y ago
Why would they even try this? The amount of bad publicity they'll get shouldn't cover up for a small chance the court will accept it.
- vel0city 2y ago
  What bad press? Think Disneyland isn't going to be packed again soon?
  - al_borland 2y ago
    Will people be willing to even test a free trial of Disney+ if it means Disney then has them over a barrel for the rest of their life?
    - caddemon 2y ago
      Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms. To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.
      - al_borland 2y ago
        They own a lot. They have 20 property holding companies, and only a few are obviously owned by Disney, not sure if that also carries to the businesses on all of those properties. It is possible someone could be on Disney owned property, and thus caught under the Disney+ agreement, without knowing it. I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mandmandam 2y ago
There ought to be consequences for even trying something this stupid. Those Disney attorneys feel perfectly safe pulling this, and that's a problem imo.
- upon_drumhead 2y ago
  I disagree. Once it's thrown out as an invalid argument, we'll have documented case law indicating that this argument won't be valid and it will reshape the future actions. It's an important step in the process.
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    Companies will still be able to at least try and drag things out while the other party runs out of money. Precedent doesn’t change that.
  - LeonB 2y ago
    This fails the asymmetry test. There are effectively infinite variations on any wrong argument, they don’t all need to be tested. There’s no progress gained by having to engage in a war of attrition.
    - fastball 2y ago
      That's not really how the law works.
  - hugh-avherald 2y ago
    Your argument would apply to anything unlawful.
eadler 2y ago
your periodic reminder that pre-dispute arbitration agreements are evil: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/
- lamontcg 2y ago
  It is unbelievable that we put up with this stupid shit, and it isn't just illegal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paulpauper 2y ago
self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died. Even the Epi pen did not work. Must have been a really bad reaction. Imagine going though life knowing that even a tiny misstep can kill you.
- gedy 2y ago
  I'm not blaming the victim, but would never trust my life to random restaurants and employees. There's just no way that strangers give a damn enough to risk it, even if you tell them to be careful.
  - mgaunard 2y ago
    are you suggesting that people with allergies should always cook every one of their meals? That's quite unreasonable.
    - gedy 2y ago
      If your allergies are as life threatening as they were here? I would definitely prepare my own food.
      - alexey-salmin 2y ago
        Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life. Other people often voluntarily partake in activities that involve low-to-moderate risk of death because they enjoy them.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        > Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life Don't be hyperbolic. It means that avoiding death at the cost of preparing your own meals is more important than eating at restaurants. Restaurants aren't very important and preparing your own meals isn't very taxing, so it's not a high bar to clear.
fastball 2y ago
Is it normal to go into anaphylaxis an appreciable time after eating the food that supposedly caused the allergic reaction? Everyone I've ever met that has a severe allergy has an adverse reaction immediately after exposure to the allergen.
- keane 2y ago
  Onset is minutes to hours, usually within one or two hours of exposure. "In rare cases, anaphylaxis may be delayed for hours." (source https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anaphylaxis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351468#symptoms https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anaphylaxis/s...) Additionally: "anaphylactic reactions can also present in a biphasic manner in up to 20% of cases. Even after successful management of the initial presenting symptoms, there can be a recurrence of symptoms peaking 8 to 11 hours after the initial reaction." (source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/)
- scarby2 2y ago
  It's not normal. It is however possible.
- jldugger 2y ago
  Planet Hollywood right now: http://i.imgur.com/miezzfz.gif http://i.imgur.com/miezzfz.gif
- quitit 2y ago
  While delayed anaphylaxis is not unusual, it's the wording of this article that is a touch misleading. This article states "later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood". This gives the impression of some time passing, and that they perhaps went to Planet Hollywood (presumably to eat again). According to an earlier article this isn't the case. Instead they ate at about 8pm, and by 8:45pm she had the reaction and entered the Planet Hollywood to seek medical assistance, with the ambulance called nearly immediately. https://wdwnt.com/2024/02/doctor-dies-allergic-reaction-raglan-road-disney/ https://wdwnt.com/2024/02/doctor-dies-allergic-reaction-ragl...
kstenerud 2y ago
Now THAT is some impressive chutzpah! I wonder if it's possible to penalize the lawyers for even coming up with this argument?
torstenvl 2y ago
If the agreement at the time is anything like the current agreement, this is a serious misrepresentation to the court. The terms do require Disney+ users to "agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes" with some IP exceptions. But "Disputes" is a term of art that "includes any claim, dispute, action, or other controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or common law, between you and Disney concerning the Disney Products or this Agreement" (emphasis added). What are the Disney Products? They are "certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel." I hope the lawyers get sanctioned and disbarred.
- userbinator 2y ago
  services in any media format or channel I suspect they may argue that it covers physical services such as those provided by Disney Springs.
  - pishpash 2y ago
    What media format are the onion rings?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hunter2_ 2y ago
      If given as a gift, or representing all the other fried foods, Token Ring.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - teractiveodular 2y ago
      Tor, of course.
  - noisy_boy 2y ago
sircastor 2y ago
It wasn’t too long ago I began to understand that lawyers are just hackers, but instead of computers they hack the law. For some, hacking the law is a game - to the point where they can lose sight of the humanity intrinsic in law and simply try to penetrate through the vulnerabilities while seeking a “win”.
- smt88 2y ago
  This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.
  - csallen 2y ago
    I think you're essentially proving the op's point. In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
    - ozim 2y ago
      I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away. But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
      - csallen 2y ago
        Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.
      - Closi 2y ago
        One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.
keernan 2y ago
I predict we will soon learn that the attorney who filed the motion "on behalf of Disney" was hired by an insurance company providing bodily injury insurance coverage for the restaurant; and that Disney had no knowledge of the motion or its legal argument; and that Disney disagrees with the purported legal position taken. By way of background: I am a retired trial attorney and spent 40 years litigating cases involving insurance.
- ggm 2y ago
  I would imagine Disney as a corporate consumer of goods and services would also realise it too was at risk of inadvertently agreeing to "egregious" terms if this went ahead: they would not want to incur the cost of even finer grained legals on things they sign to. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Gander. Or in more modern parlance "no, not like that"
andrewxdiamond 2y ago
I found the link to the actual filling. I can’t really read legalise but it seem like this is accurate. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25041321-disney-arbitration-tangsuan#document/p2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25041321-disney-arbi...
- nadermx 2y ago
  This was filed in may, was there a response already from the plaintiffs?
  - fastball 2y ago
    Here is the plaintiff response: https://assets.ctfassets.net/3kqcuzntcg31/44jbm0vnEx1KrdgIYOO0hd/6c378775851d5e7ff04e1e0f3074de7d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/3kqcuzntcg31/44jbm0vnEx1KrdgIYO...
- fastball 2y ago
  While Disney is indeed trying to get this dismissed as described, I think it is also worth noting that the restaurant in question is not actually owned by Disney. Disney is the landlord. However the plaintiff is suing Disney on the grounds that the menu of the restaurant was published on Disney's website, and that within this menu was a claim that the restaurant is "allergen-free". But given that it does not seem like Disney produced this menu (only re-published it on behalf of the lessee), that seems like very tenuous grounds on which to sue Disney. By filing this motion to dismiss, Disney is saying "if that connection is enough basis to sue us, then the pre-existing contract we have with the plaintiff should be enough to dismiss". I agree with other commenters in this thread that we do not want to set the precedent that a dismissal on these grounds would create, but at the same time I think the plaintiff suing Disney in the first place is overly litigious.
  - pishpash 2y ago
    That's disingenuous. Menu being on Disney's website makes Disney more than a landlord, more like a service provider. Is Disney responsible for what's on its site or not? What if the menu had some hate speech or terrorism?
gorgoiler 2y ago
Is it normal to describe the claimant in a wrongful death lawsuit as a “victim”? I would have said the victim was the person who died. It makes this seem even more vexatious as Disney want to have the case dismissed because it was the deceased’s husband who signed up for a free trial of Disney+.
- upon_drumhead 2y ago
  There can be more than one victim. In this case, the claimant suffered a loss of the person who died, which is impossible to quantify, but makes them a victim as well.
scarby2 2y ago
This is ridiculous but what I can't work out is why they don't just (correctly) claim that they neither own nor operate the restaurant. It would be absurd to hold a landlord responsible for the actions of their tenant.
tsimionescu 2y ago
The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use. I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant. This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.
- pishpash 2y ago
  The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death. So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity. The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...
    - caddemon 2y ago
      This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.
pokstad 2y ago
So if my child is run over to death by a Disney vehicle, I can’t sue them in court because I watch Bluey?
tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion/claim, Disney can only win. In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs. Courts should be able to issue sanctions/extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from "you killed this person negligently" to "you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband", and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.
- make3 2y ago
  I would assume that lawyer companies might want to take this on without charging the person just because the potential upside of winning the lawsuit or settling it is so big. I agree with the general case that the legal system is really not accessible to everyone though ofc
- thih9 2y ago
  In general I agree, except perhaps "Disney can only win.". They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss. Their service is hospitality and the message they're sending here is very much inhospitable. It might turn into a meme, like "Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL". It might make people hesitate and/or choose a different holiday destination. Etc.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss. When has that ever happened? I can't think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.
    - roshin 2y ago
ssijak 2y ago
This article made me so angry. Hey she did not sign a contract with the devil but an online free trial for unrelated service 10 years ago.
simpaticoder 2y ago
Anyone doing business with Disney should cancel their D+ subscription and pay an attorney to properly notify Disney Corp. that the terms of The Agreement no longer apply. Indeed, this step should be taken by sub-contractors, anyone visiting the parks, anyone who could conceivably have contact with the parks, the movie studios, the corporate HQ, any suppliers or subcontractors, or anyone working for any of the above. This move is abhorrent, and if the judge buys it, it is dystopian.
- LeonB 2y ago
  Disney headquarters should be picketed for this, large scale boycotts etc are the only fair response. In a sane world, companies who sell products to consumers should be terrified of ever being caught doing something as disgusting as this. But our actual standards are far lower than we would like to admit.
yieldcrv 2y ago
> Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console. Okay this is full blown dystopia, the onion couldnt even make this up Christ, she even self administered an epipen, was transported to a hospital and died anyway This is a nightmare like, just be a human Disney, there are so many humans involved here
- alt227 2y ago
  It is important to remember the details here. Disney dont run the restuarant, they are just the landlord. The customer didnt pay anything to disney, they just visited a restuarant at a freely open Mall which happened to be owned by disney. The only reason this person is trying to sue disney is because the disney mall website republished the menu of the restuarant which said 'Allergen Free' on it. The absurd counter repsonse from disney is just their way of drawing attention to the fact that the original case is just as absurd. Why are they suing Disney when they had nothing to do with the food served, the staff serving it, or even the company that runs the restuarant?
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    If they want a summary judgement they could just start off by pointing those things out, like not being an accurate defendant. Maybe they did in the actual court filing and the rest is just “but if we are a defendant here’s some other ways we covered our ass” I’m going to go look. Id feel a lot better if the media is the problem here
moandcompany 2y ago
(I am not a lawyer, not familiar with Florida state law, and this is not legal advice nor a legal opinion) It is possible that Disney's lawyers expect their motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit from the Florida trial court and compel arbitration to fail, but are (1) attempting to take the shot and see if the judge agrees, which is a win for them, and (2) may be attempting to take advantage of the rules of procedure where even if their motion is denied, Disney can benefit. There is little for them to lose by trying. First, as others have commented, even if Disney's arguments fail, the only real consequences are born by the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources. Civil trials like this are wars of attrition between parties with vastly asymmetric resources. Second, under the rules of civil procedure in many states, which may be the case under Florida law, a denied motion to compel arbitration can be appealed and while that appeal is pending, the case would typically be "stayed" (i.e. paused). Resolution of the appeal can take several years, again applying consequences to the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources, even if the appeal fails. Because of the above, US corporate defendants have been observed to incorporate motions to compel arbitration into their strategies, even when no arbitration agreement, whatsoever, existed. Even in such a situation, when their motion to compel arbitration is denied, the trial court case is stayed (i.e. frozen) for several years while the denied motion to compel arbitration is pending appeal. In California, this became such a problem for both regular plaintiffs and the state's Attorney General, that the state legislature passed a law to change the rules of civil procedure, via SB365 (2023), which took effect this year on January 1, 2024. Under current California law, trial court cases are no longer automatically stayed while a denied motion to compel arbitration are pending appeal. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB365 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... Meanwhile, under US Federal Law (from a Supreme Court ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - 2023), when a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is denied, the trial court case is automatically stayed.
h_tbob 2y ago
While what happened is awful, it’s hard to blame anybody. Anaphylaxis is a huge issue. I think we should chill out and recognize that people make mistakes, and it’s not fair to pin somebody’s death on accidental contamination. Should they be more careful? Yes. But you can’t screw someone for this because it’s just not fair. It the universes fault, we shouldn’t be fighting each other. My 2 cents
- UberFly 2y ago
  I agree in principal. Someone with severe enough nut allergies to the point that they'll kill you shouldn't trust any source of food outside your own limited control. The next logical step is restaurants telling patrons they aren't allowed to order if they have food allergies.
  - justneedaname 2y ago
    I don't subscribe to this take either. As the partner of someone with a server nut allergy why should we be restricted to only eating food we have prepared? Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard. Some people / establishments just don't seem to take it seriously though, like when a flight attendant told my partner she would be fine to eat the snacks they handed out and that they didn't contain nuts... the bag of roasted corn and nuts...
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard. To the contrary, it's actually extremely hard. When I order, I probably get something incorrect ~10% of the time. Whether fine dining or fast food. To deal with life-threatening allergies, you need to get that error rate down from 10% to, what, 0.000001% or something? You're literally asking for hospital- and pharmacy-level procedures, controls, and training. Which would make restaurants far more expensive and there would be far less of them. Not impossible, but yes extremely hard, when servers mix up orders and cooks mix up tickets and runners mix up plates and tables.
notimetorelax 2y ago
Given the assurances by the chef and the waiter I don't understand how this is not a manslaughter or gross negligence charge? This whole situation is a nightmare for someone with strong allergies.
mxfh 2y ago
Oh that's why Spotify's Healthcare Provider division has so competitive pricing.
red_admiral 2y ago
Can T&C really exclude liability in case of a death? (Unless the deceased was accused of negligence or similar.) And would an arbitration clause be binding on the executors of a will, considering the person who accepted the terms is no longer alive?
lolc 2y ago
One more notch for the adjective "disney" to mean "will attempt anything to serve own interests, morally bankrupt".
RecycledEle 2y ago
Is this a chance to strike down click-wrap TOS once and for all?
Gravityloss 2y ago
A colleague of mine has lived in the USA for years. When visiting the local office here he commented, paraphrased "the craziest thing there is that at any given time you can make a tiny mistake, and the rest of your life is messed up completely". I think ruining random individuals' lives is not a sign of a good legal system. There are some other systems that try to avoid that more, though of course that still happens, and there are some things to be discussed on what kind of contracts are legal etc. There are of course different legal traditions in the world and so on too, in the bigger picture, but still, it seems so disastrous to the individual looking from outside.
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  For example, killing someone by ignoring their allergies? I find it very odd that someone would live in the US for years and have that be their main takeaway.
  - wang_li 2y ago
    It’s more interesting that, I’m assuming, they categorize mistakes by the nature of the error and not the results of the error. Not checking your blind spot on an empty road is a tiny mistake. Not checking your blind spot causing a bus driver to swerve to avoid a collision, but the swerve resulted in the bus crashing into a petrol truck leading to a massive fire and dozens of dead school children is not a tiny mistake.
  - phreack 2y ago
    I think a good faith interpretation is that the "mistake" was having accepted the terms of use of Disney+. Not that it was really a mistake, the system is just rigged and they'd have found another argument if not this one.
- naikrovek 2y ago
  our legal system was built with the assumptions that there would never be any actively malevolent attorneys representing clients, or actively malevolent judges, assumptions that are clearly very wrong. and now we have a problem, because until those individuals have a very long, very provable track record of malevolence, there is little that can be done to combat them.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
There’s a major conundrum here. If the courts let Disney be called guilty it renders all fine print not legally binding. This changes society itself. Disney is technically right. Being technically right is well defined. At the same time here the technicality they are using here sounds completely absurd. How do we maintain technical integrity of the law while taking into account exceptional cases such as this?
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  It would mean fine prints need to be reasonable, and what does "reasonable" mean will be decided by a judge when needed.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Being reasonable is ill defined in itself. People can willy nilly interpret things how they want. This goes both for the writer of fine print and for the reader. There is merit in following wording to the exact meaning and intent. How do I get a user to explicitly agree to something that is unreasonable then? There are times where this is the case, for example sky diving, I need the user to consent that he might die.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      A sky diving user consenting to die from unforseen problems or inherent risk of the activity is reasonable. Consenting to die from gross incompetence or straight malice is unreasonable. We need a line between the two, otherwise the common law also becomes meaningless.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Jumping off a plane is highly unreasonable from my point of view. No one should be jumping off a plane for fun because the risk is too high. This is my POV against yours. Who's POV is correct? One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. But of course therein lies the problem. You can use this "wording" to uncover loopholes. To get rid of the loopholes you can allow "reasoning" to override these loopholes. But then it becomes your POV against mine. Of course my POV is right and you're obviously wrong. Would that be the more correct way to handle things? No.
darajava 2y ago
I’ve cancelled my Disney+ subscription.
jostmey 2y ago
I wonder if arbitration is not the point. The goal might be to slow down the court system, forcing the court to pause and think about every little thing, such as arbitration, even if the court will never side with Disney on this issue
natroniks 2y ago
Reminds me of the South Park episode where agreeing to Apple's Terms and Conditions gives Steve Jobs the right to perform experimental surgery on you (inspired by the B horror flick Human Centipede). Just found the episode title, "HumancentiPad" S15 E1 from 2011
fuuuuug 2y ago
[flagged]
teolemon 2y ago
It does not seem to bother Dumbo: https://youtu.be/vIlb4-NqlG4?t=11 https://youtu.be/vIlb4-NqlG4?t=11
ghusto 2y ago
Putting aside the obvious flaw in the argument, a person died. Surely there are some kind of criminal charges that can be brought against Disney?
- tpmoney 2y ago
  Not every death is the result of criminal action. At best, you might find some argument for criminally negligent behavior, but that's going to probably be a pretty big reach for the landlord of a 3rd party restaurant in a mall. Criminal negligence usually requires the accused to have engaged in conduct that they knew (or reasonably should have known) would put someone in danger. Even if you say that republishing the 3rd party's menu or even collaborating on that menu extends the civil liability to Disney, I'm having a hard time imagining any argument that those actions could be reasonably known to endanger someone without some evidence that the restaurant had no allergen policies or procedures and that Disney knew that and still placed wording to imply they did.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Peaches4Rent 2y ago
I don't normally comment, but I think I just had a meltdown. I'm just in disbelief that this can work and a judge will allow it.
pessimizer 2y ago
I don't understand the difference between forced arbitration and sharia law. I don't think the courts do, either, seeing as they've ordered raped/stalked women and labor-trafficked children into "spiritual arbitration" through the Church of Scientology. In a future so near as to have happened a few years ago, monopolies and near-monopolies can force people who use their services to submit to arbitrary private legal codes and systems of judgement. It's almost like giving up your citizenship. It's like how the US government doesn't have to follow the law in Guantanamo, except Guantanamo is Walgreens, or Amazon. edit: I just had a 10-second nightmare where giving Walgreens my phone number and hitting "I accept" on the screen at the checkout, in order to get the sale price, somehow prevents me from suing my doctor for malpractice after a horrible medical accident. I thought I was just selling my privacy, but I was actually selling my rights as a US citizen.
jimt1234 2y ago
Sort-related question: Can restaurants refuse to serve someone who mentions severe dietary restrictions? Honestly, if I owned a restaurant, that's where I would lean because the risk is too high. If one of the cooks accidentally includes the wrong ingredient or the servers get the dishes mixed up, someone could die, as happened in this case. I know there's requirements to accommodate people with certain physical disabilities - wheelchairs, sight/hearing-impaired, stuff like that. But I've never heard of a requirement to accommodate all dietary needs.
- amerkhalid 2y ago
  I think that would be fine, I have seen at some Pakistani/Indian restaurants where they apologized and said could not remove the ingredients or prevent cross contamination.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Coverage elsewhere, alphabetical by source: From the BBC: "Disney+ terms prevent allergy death lawsuit, Disney says" <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go> From CNN: "Disney wants wrongful death suit dismissed because widower signed up for Disney+" <https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful...> From the Guardian: "Disney claims streaming arbitration clause binding in resort wrongful death suit" <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disn...> From NPR: "Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because plaintiff had Disney+" <https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful...> From the NY Post: "Disney wants allergy death suit tossed because of widower's Disney+ subscription" <https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-death-suit-tossed-because-of-disney-subscription/ https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-d...> From the Telegraph: "Disney World: Cannot sue over wife's death at park as he signed up for Disney+" <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-disney-world-allergy-death-lawsuit-smallprint/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-di...> (I'm editing this comment to add additional sources as they're submitted to HN and flagged as dupes...)
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  People skim an in person contract, “I just want to make sure I’m not signing my soul away! haha” But when your spouse clicks agree on the Playstation trial 3 years prior, its all for nothing
garfieldnate 2y ago
100 bucks says Louis Rossmann will rant about this tonight.
mvandermeulen 2y ago
Surely this is an “only in the US” moment. Or are there other countries where this could be legally valid too?
- stop50 2y ago
  In germany its codified. If an clause is uncommon and unexpected, its invalid. This case would not even hold up in court, since other regulations come first and would cause for the restaurant to be closed for multiple weeks
anshumankmr 2y ago
Day by day, Disney is becoming closer to its fictional counterpart, Vought Corp in the show The Boys.
silexia 2y ago
Disney has become quite an evil corporation. I would like my four kids to watch Disney classic movies, but I refuse to give such a company my dollars.
thewileyone 2y ago
Time to get personal checks printed out that say, "By cashing this check, the cashee is NOT EXEMPT from any legal action in the future."
Cecil123 2y ago
[flagged]

667 points by fortran77 2y ago

wdb 2y ago

If we didn't need more reasons not to go Disney World or support Disney. I can't say they have created amazing content recently. Most of the interesting content is not produced by them.

fortran77 2y ago

Wow! > In the latest update for the Disney Springs wrongful death lawsuit, Disney cited legal language within the terms and conditions for Disney+, which “requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.” Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console. One month free trial! But the Disney Lawyers found it. See also Newsday article: https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant-carle-place-physician-allergy-gcgv997y?utm_source=tw_nd https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/disney-restaurant...

justahuman74 2y ago
If this argument actually works, then laws need serious change
- fortran77 2y ago
  Agreed. They should at least say that an artibration clause in a contract can never apply to anything that's not covered by that particular contract for that particular transaction.
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  Seems like any reasonable court would find it unenforceable, but who knows
  - garciasn 2y ago
    As someone who just went through a messy divorce planned for the entirety of the 18m affair my ex-wife was having, there is no court on this earth that I would ever say is reasonable.
    - janniehater 2y ago
      I'm sorry to hear that, I hope things are looking brighter
- 77pt77 2y ago
  As in everything law related, that depends on the parties involved.
djmips 2y ago
How can trial terms be enforced in perpetuity!? And the park and restaurant has nothing to do with Disney+ Streaming.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The article is just misunderstanding a bit. It's not about Disney+ Streaming, the tickets to the park were bought through the Disney+ account, that's where the relation is (according to Disney, at least).
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I'm correcting this everywhere I said it - I'm wrong and the article is right. The park tickets are separate from access to the mall, so they're just as unrelated to the death as the video streaming was...
tsimionescu 2y ago
This News day article is disingenuous. If you look at the filing (someone else in the thread has posted the documents), Disney is saying that the husband bought the tickets to Disneyland (where the restaurant is, and without which they couldn't have accessed it) using his Disney+ account, and that the ticket purchase includes terms that he explicitly agreed to which re-iterate that the Disney+ terms of use apply as well. So there is some plausible argument that the terms apply to services they received at Disneyland, it's not "yes, but he has also subscribed to our streaming service". I still hope that this doesn't pass muster - your right to seek a lawsuit for grievous injury or death shouldn't be covered by some checkbox you clicked on a site.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  That's incorrect, the restaurant is at Disney Springs which is a mall outside Disney's parks and doesn't require tickets. [0][1] [0]https://touringplans.com/blog/disney-in-a-minute-what-is-disney-springs/ https://touringplans.com/blog/disney-in-a-minute-what-is-dis... [1]https://www.disneysprings.com/dining/ https://www.disneysprings.com/dining/
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Oh, you're right and I was completely wrong. So Disney really is just trying to hold someone to a contract for a completely unrelated service...
- fortran77 2y ago
  Don't spread misinformation. The fact is don't need a park ticket to enter Raglin Road. It's on WDW property, but it's outside a park gate.

madbicyclist 2y ago

Is it really worth dodging one lawsuit at the cost of the impending disgust from thousands of potential customers?

readthenotes1 2y ago
Disney isn't worried about a few thousand customers, and most of them either won't hear of this or won't know how else to occupy their kids' attention
herpdyderp 2y ago
Thousand of customers is nothing to Disney
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
I feel in my bones that sometime in the last five years, large enough companies have lost the fear of pissing off the public. Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act. Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted. We're about to enter a new phase of powerlessness.
- 77pt77 2y ago
  > Big enough companies have become too big to be disrupted Eg: Boeing.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > Consumers have proven too passive and docile to act I know it's tempting, but don't blame "consumers". For one thing, it's mathematically impossible for people to be appropriately outraged over every instance of corporate evil. There's too much of it. If you want to assign blame, maybe put it on corporate media (like Disney lol). They're the ones who sold us every war, every atrocity we're complicit in, and covered up or distracted from the most important crimes which enabled everything else.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    And yet, not doing business with disney is so easy. All you have to do is not spend $10/month on their streaming thing. Or not spend thousands on a trip to their park thing. Or not pay a $20 premium for their toy things. I can't recall ever giving disney money as an adult. And I think the last time my family did was buying a DVD copy of Finding Nemo some time around 2008. So the outrage threshold to "do something" in this case is "barely outraged at all". In any case, going after one company is a more, not less, realistic target than attacking "corporate media" as a whole.

Animats 2y ago

Need to query the California PUC about whether having signed up for Google relieves them from liabilty if you're hit by a Waymo.

amluto 2y ago
Or whether having ever done business with Tesla prevents one from suing Tesla if someone else’s autopiloting car hits them. Presumably a sensible court would hold that no possible interpretation of a contract affects a lawsuit unrelated to the scope of the product or services provided under that contract.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Tesla doesn't have driverless cars, so I'm not worried. The drivers are responsible if the software shits itself.
  - scarby2 2y ago
    This will absolutely change in the next decade.
    - lpapez 2y ago
      As announced by their CEO in the previous decade...
      - bee_rider 2y ago
        I think they must mean the second sentence will happen in the next decade. Tesla releasing a self driving car… probably not so likely.
        scarby2 2y ago
        Given that other companies have self driving cars operating (but not for sale) today (I've taken rides in them). I think Tesla might have to accept they need to use more sensors, and maybe even licence someone else's tech but Tesla will not accept being the only "luxury" automaker not offering self driving.

ggm 2y ago

Hamlet might have had a point. This feels very like a-moral application of years of legal training. On this basis, any transactions, of any nature which come with an Implied contract acceptance are going to be superseded by words which enable get-out-of-jail-free for all parent, associated, restructured companies, forever. Watch out when you sign the hotel bill. You just promised to give your body on death to the parent company's medical school. I doubt it's that simple but you would hope the justice system is going to tear this legal theory a new exit hole and not wash their hands first. Specificity is everything in a contract. Sweeping terms, perpetual licence would be a nightmare. (Not a lawyer, which will be obvious)

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
I know binding arbitration is the new hotness, but it seems unlikely this is the first time a company has tried to link a generic “absolved-from-everything” clause to an unrelated incident.
- bawolff 2y ago
  IANAL but seems like a text book example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionability
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Wow, the example on that page is brilliant. To quote: > For instance, in Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020) the Supreme Court of Canada found an arbitration clause requiring gig workers in Ontario to litigate before the Dutch International Chamber of Commerce was unconscionable and so void. LOL. Uber, again.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      “Inventing”!
  - ozim 2y ago

tyre 2y ago

imagine coming up with this idea, pitching it, and then going through with it i can imagine as a lawyer thinking of this jokingly, but to actually go through with it is wild

TillE 2y ago

The alleged point of arbitration clauses is to ease the burden on the courts, which is rather contradicted when lawyers choose to waste a judge's time with dumb arguments like this.

Log_out_ 2y ago
The point of arbitration is to errode the rule of law and attack the state. Surplanting it with "company law" which is not supervised/vetoed indirectly by democratic voting. All other stated goals are lies, often ironically co-evolving to mimic the states already existing more efficient structures.
tpmoney 2y ago
From the plaintiff's response to this motion linked elsewhere, I'm thinking that Disney is somewhat compelled to file this motion in order to have any shot at arbitration being relevant at all. Their initial response to the lawsuit (included in the appendix of that plaintiff's response) is a pretty stock "we don't think we have liability here, it's on the restaurant" response. But the plaintiff response notes an aspect of law where a party willingly participating in a lawsuit without asserting their right to arbitration early is presumed to be waiving that right. So it sounds like Disney must produce some argument early in the proceedings that this should be removed to arbitration in order to preserve that possibility assuming that it is something that would be covered by the arbitration agreements. I'm not sure I buy how they connect their agreements specifically to transactions in this publicly accessible mall, but it seems like if they didn't make the attempt at all, they couldn't later make the attempt if later in the court process something came to light that indicated this should have been handled with arbitration.

blackoil 2y ago

Why would they even try this? The amount of bad publicity they'll get shouldn't cover up for a small chance the court will accept it.

vel0city 2y ago
What bad press? Think Disneyland isn't going to be packed again soon?
- al_borland 2y ago
  Will people be willing to even test a free trial of Disney+ if it means Disney then has them over a barrel for the rest of their life?
  - caddemon 2y ago
    Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms. To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.
    - al_borland 2y ago
      They own a lot. They have 20 property holding companies, and only a few are obviously owned by Disney, not sure if that also carries to the businesses on all of those properties. It is possible someone could be on Disney owned property, and thus caught under the Disney+ agreement, without knowing it. I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mandmandam 2y ago

There ought to be consequences for even trying something this stupid. Those Disney attorneys feel perfectly safe pulling this, and that's a problem imo.

upon_drumhead 2y ago
I disagree. Once it's thrown out as an invalid argument, we'll have documented case law indicating that this argument won't be valid and it will reshape the future actions. It's an important step in the process.
- p_j_w 2y ago
  Companies will still be able to at least try and drag things out while the other party runs out of money. Precedent doesn’t change that.
- LeonB 2y ago
  This fails the asymmetry test. There are effectively infinite variations on any wrong argument, they don’t all need to be tested. There’s no progress gained by having to engage in a war of attrition.
  - fastball 2y ago
    That's not really how the law works.
- hugh-avherald 2y ago
  Your argument would apply to anything unlawful.

eadler 2y ago

your periodic reminder that pre-dispute arbitration agreements are evil: https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/

lamontcg 2y ago
It is unbelievable that we put up with this stupid shit, and it isn't just illegal.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

paulpauper 2y ago

self-administered an EpiPen, and was transported to a local hospital, where she later died. Even the Epi pen did not work. Must have been a really bad reaction. Imagine going though life knowing that even a tiny misstep can kill you.

gedy 2y ago
I'm not blaming the victim, but would never trust my life to random restaurants and employees. There's just no way that strangers give a damn enough to risk it, even if you tell them to be careful.
- mgaunard 2y ago
  are you suggesting that people with allergies should always cook every one of their meals? That's quite unreasonable.
  - gedy 2y ago
    If your allergies are as life threatening as they were here? I would definitely prepare my own food.
    - alexey-salmin 2y ago
      Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life. Other people often voluntarily partake in activities that involve low-to-moderate risk of death because they enjoy them.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        > Well this just means that for you avoiding death at any cost is more important than leaving a full life Don't be hyperbolic. It means that avoiding death at the cost of preparing your own meals is more important than eating at restaurants. Restaurants aren't very important and preparing your own meals isn't very taxing, so it's not a high bar to clear.

fastball 2y ago

Is it normal to go into anaphylaxis an appreciable time after eating the food that supposedly caused the allergic reaction? Everyone I've ever met that has a severe allergy has an adverse reaction immediately after exposure to the allergen.

keane 2y ago
Onset is minutes to hours, usually within one or two hours of exposure. "In rare cases, anaphylaxis may be delayed for hours." (source https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anaphylaxis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351468#symptoms https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anaphylaxis/s...) Additionally: "anaphylactic reactions can also present in a biphasic manner in up to 20% of cases. Even after successful management of the initial presenting symptoms, there can be a recurrence of symptoms peaking 8 to 11 hours after the initial reaction." (source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482124/)
scarby2 2y ago
It's not normal. It is however possible.
jldugger 2y ago
Planet Hollywood right now: http://i.imgur.com/miezzfz.gif http://i.imgur.com/miezzfz.gif
quitit 2y ago
While delayed anaphylaxis is not unusual, it's the wording of this article that is a touch misleading. This article states "later that evening, Tangsuan had an acute allergic reaction in Planet Hollywood". This gives the impression of some time passing, and that they perhaps went to Planet Hollywood (presumably to eat again). According to an earlier article this isn't the case. Instead they ate at about 8pm, and by 8:45pm she had the reaction and entered the Planet Hollywood to seek medical assistance, with the ambulance called nearly immediately. https://wdwnt.com/2024/02/doctor-dies-allergic-reaction-raglan-road-disney/ https://wdwnt.com/2024/02/doctor-dies-allergic-reaction-ragl...

kstenerud 2y ago

Now THAT is some impressive chutzpah! I wonder if it's possible to penalize the lawyers for even coming up with this argument?

torstenvl 2y ago

If the agreement at the time is anything like the current agreement, this is a serious misrepresentation to the court. The terms do require Disney+ users to "agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes" with some IP exceptions. But "Disputes" is a term of art that "includes any claim, dispute, action, or other controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or common law, between you and Disney concerning the Disney Products or this Agreement" (emphasis added). What are the Disney Products? They are "certain websites, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel." I hope the lawyers get sanctioned and disbarred.

userbinator 2y ago
services in any media format or channel I suspect they may argue that it covers physical services such as those provided by Disney Springs.
- pishpash 2y ago
  What media format are the onion rings?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hunter2_ 2y ago
    If given as a gift, or representing all the other fried foods, Token Ring.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    Tor, of course.
- noisy_boy 2y ago

sircastor 2y ago

It wasn’t too long ago I began to understand that lawyers are just hackers, but instead of computers they hack the law. For some, hacking the law is a game - to the point where they can lose sight of the humanity intrinsic in law and simply try to penetrate through the vulnerabilities while seeking a “win”.

smt88 2y ago
This is mostly untrue and essentially the point of judges. A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes or misinterpretations of a law.
- csallen 2y ago
  I think you're essentially proving the op's point. In your own words, "A judge's role is to prevent people using ridiculous loopholes." In that sentence, "people" === lawyers
  - ozim 2y ago
    I think parent meant that you cannot hack the law because judge will see it and tell you to go away. But I do agree judges are hackable too. It is more hassle to do it right and I hope stupid attempts from Disney will be met with some kind of repercussions.
    - csallen 2y ago
      Ah, I see. But I also think that sircastor's point when they said "hackers" was not that lawyers can bypass the intent of the law with impunity. Rather, I think the point was that lawyers will frequently attempt to interpret, use, and even abuse both the letter and the intent of the law in clever ways in order to achieve their goals on behalf of their clients.
    - Closi 2y ago
      One hack though is to drag out proceedings to cause additional cost, which a judge can limit but not entirely avoid.

keernan 2y ago

I predict we will soon learn that the attorney who filed the motion "on behalf of Disney" was hired by an insurance company providing bodily injury insurance coverage for the restaurant; and that Disney had no knowledge of the motion or its legal argument; and that Disney disagrees with the purported legal position taken. By way of background: I am a retired trial attorney and spent 40 years litigating cases involving insurance.

ggm 2y ago
I would imagine Disney as a corporate consumer of goods and services would also realise it too was at risk of inadvertently agreeing to "egregious" terms if this went ahead: they would not want to incur the cost of even finer grained legals on things they sign to. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Gander. Or in more modern parlance "no, not like that"

andrewxdiamond 2y ago

I found the link to the actual filling. I can’t really read legalise but it seem like this is accurate. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25041321-disney-arbitration-tangsuan#document/p2 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25041321-disney-arbi...

nadermx 2y ago
This was filed in may, was there a response already from the plaintiffs?
- fastball 2y ago
  Here is the plaintiff response: https://assets.ctfassets.net/3kqcuzntcg31/44jbm0vnEx1KrdgIYOO0hd/6c378775851d5e7ff04e1e0f3074de7d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/3kqcuzntcg31/44jbm0vnEx1KrdgIYO...
fastball 2y ago
While Disney is indeed trying to get this dismissed as described, I think it is also worth noting that the restaurant in question is not actually owned by Disney. Disney is the landlord. However the plaintiff is suing Disney on the grounds that the menu of the restaurant was published on Disney's website, and that within this menu was a claim that the restaurant is "allergen-free". But given that it does not seem like Disney produced this menu (only re-published it on behalf of the lessee), that seems like very tenuous grounds on which to sue Disney. By filing this motion to dismiss, Disney is saying "if that connection is enough basis to sue us, then the pre-existing contract we have with the plaintiff should be enough to dismiss". I agree with other commenters in this thread that we do not want to set the precedent that a dismissal on these grounds would create, but at the same time I think the plaintiff suing Disney in the first place is overly litigious.
- pishpash 2y ago
  That's disingenuous. Menu being on Disney's website makes Disney more than a landlord, more like a service provider. Is Disney responsible for what's on its site or not? What if the menu had some hate speech or terrorism?

gorgoiler 2y ago

Is it normal to describe the claimant in a wrongful death lawsuit as a “victim”? I would have said the victim was the person who died. It makes this seem even more vexatious as Disney want to have the case dismissed because it was the deceased’s husband who signed up for a free trial of Disney+.

upon_drumhead 2y ago
There can be more than one victim. In this case, the claimant suffered a loss of the person who died, which is impossible to quantify, but makes them a victim as well.

scarby2 2y ago

This is ridiculous but what I can't work out is why they don't just (correctly) claim that they neither own nor operate the restaurant. It would be absurd to hold a landlord responsible for the actions of their tenant.

tsimionescu 2y ago

The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use. I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant. This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.

pishpash 2y ago
The plaintiff is arguing an equally absurd notion, that because they are suing on behalf of the estate, the estate never signed up for Disney+ because it didn't exist before the death. So you know, it's all absurdity vs absurdity. The reasonable human thing would be to say that an autosigned agreement should have a higher bar on terms and in particar no provision in it can be valid for irrelevant things to the immediate service at hand. (Several others have made the same conclusion.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Found out in the meantime that I was wrong - the tickets are not for this mall and have just as little to do with the case as Disney+ video. Disney's claim is just that absurd...
  - caddemon 2y ago
    This defense is absurd, but also there are no tickets for the mall and Disney doesn't own most of the stores/restaurants in the mall. The restaurant in question is a tenant and the company that owns it is also being sued.

pokstad 2y ago

So if my child is run over to death by a Disney vehicle, I can’t sue them in court because I watch Bluey?

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago

The bug in the legal system is that by filing this motion/claim, Disney can only win. In the unlikely best case, they get the case dismissed, but even in the most likely case that the motion is denied, they win by wearing down their opponent who has much more limited resources and is personally affected by the case dragging out, i.e. more likely to accept a (lower) settlement than without this tactic. The only downside is a tiny bit of legal costs. Courts should be able to issue sanctions/extra damages for the use of such tactics. If using such a tactic turned the claim from "you killed this person negligently" to "you killed this person negligently, then willfully tried sleazy tricks to create additional suffering for the husband", and had the potential to double the award, companies would be much less eager to play this game.

make3 2y ago
I would assume that lawyer companies might want to take this on without charging the person just because the potential upside of winning the lawsuit or settling it is so big. I agree with the general case that the legal system is really not accessible to everyone though ofc
thih9 2y ago
In general I agree, except perhaps "Disney can only win.". They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss. Their service is hospitality and the message they're sending here is very much inhospitable. It might turn into a meme, like "Cancel your Disney+ before visiting Disney IRL". It might make people hesitate and/or choose a different holiday destination. Etc.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >They can lose PR; enough that the company might consider this an overall loss. When has that ever happened? I can't think of any time when a company lost enough PR to actually significantly affects its financials, much less put it out of business.
  - roshin 2y ago

ssijak 2y ago

This article made me so angry. Hey she did not sign a contract with the devil but an online free trial for unrelated service 10 years ago.

simpaticoder 2y ago

Anyone doing business with Disney should cancel their D+ subscription and pay an attorney to properly notify Disney Corp. that the terms of The Agreement no longer apply. Indeed, this step should be taken by sub-contractors, anyone visiting the parks, anyone who could conceivably have contact with the parks, the movie studios, the corporate HQ, any suppliers or subcontractors, or anyone working for any of the above. This move is abhorrent, and if the judge buys it, it is dystopian.

LeonB 2y ago
Disney headquarters should be picketed for this, large scale boycotts etc are the only fair response. In a sane world, companies who sell products to consumers should be terrified of ever being caught doing something as disgusting as this. But our actual standards are far lower than we would like to admit.

yieldcrv 2y ago

> Disney claims Piccolo reportedly agreed to this in 2019 when signing up for a one-month free trial of the streaming service on his PlayStation console. Okay this is full blown dystopia, the onion couldnt even make this up Christ, she even self administered an epipen, was transported to a hospital and died anyway This is a nightmare like, just be a human Disney, there are so many humans involved here

alt227 2y ago
It is important to remember the details here. Disney dont run the restuarant, they are just the landlord. The customer didnt pay anything to disney, they just visited a restuarant at a freely open Mall which happened to be owned by disney. The only reason this person is trying to sue disney is because the disney mall website republished the menu of the restuarant which said 'Allergen Free' on it. The absurd counter repsonse from disney is just their way of drawing attention to the fact that the original case is just as absurd. Why are they suing Disney when they had nothing to do with the food served, the staff serving it, or even the company that runs the restuarant?
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  If they want a summary judgement they could just start off by pointing those things out, like not being an accurate defendant. Maybe they did in the actual court filing and the rest is just “but if we are a defendant here’s some other ways we covered our ass” I’m going to go look. Id feel a lot better if the media is the problem here

moandcompany 2y ago

(I am not a lawyer, not familiar with Florida state law, and this is not legal advice nor a legal opinion) It is possible that Disney's lawyers expect their motion to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit from the Florida trial court and compel arbitration to fail, but are (1) attempting to take the shot and see if the judge agrees, which is a win for them, and (2) may be attempting to take advantage of the rules of procedure where even if their motion is denied, Disney can benefit. There is little for them to lose by trying. First, as others have commented, even if Disney's arguments fail, the only real consequences are born by the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources. Civil trials like this are wars of attrition between parties with vastly asymmetric resources. Second, under the rules of civil procedure in many states, which may be the case under Florida law, a denied motion to compel arbitration can be appealed and while that appeal is pending, the case would typically be "stayed" (i.e. paused). Resolution of the appeal can take several years, again applying consequences to the plaintiff in terms of time and other resources, even if the appeal fails. Because of the above, US corporate defendants have been observed to incorporate motions to compel arbitration into their strategies, even when no arbitration agreement, whatsoever, existed. Even in such a situation, when their motion to compel arbitration is denied, the trial court case is stayed (i.e. frozen) for several years while the denied motion to compel arbitration is pending appeal. In California, this became such a problem for both regular plaintiffs and the state's Attorney General, that the state legislature passed a law to change the rules of civil procedure, via SB365 (2023), which took effect this year on January 1, 2024. Under current California law, trial court cases are no longer automatically stayed while a denied motion to compel arbitration are pending appeal. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB365 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... Meanwhile, under US Federal Law (from a Supreme Court ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski - 2023), when a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is denied, the trial court case is automatically stayed.

h_tbob 2y ago

While what happened is awful, it’s hard to blame anybody. Anaphylaxis is a huge issue. I think we should chill out and recognize that people make mistakes, and it’s not fair to pin somebody’s death on accidental contamination. Should they be more careful? Yes. But you can’t screw someone for this because it’s just not fair. It the universes fault, we shouldn’t be fighting each other. My 2 cents

UberFly 2y ago
I agree in principal. Someone with severe enough nut allergies to the point that they'll kill you shouldn't trust any source of food outside your own limited control. The next logical step is restaurants telling patrons they aren't allowed to order if they have food allergies.
- justneedaname 2y ago
  I don't subscribe to this take either. As the partner of someone with a server nut allergy why should we be restricted to only eating food we have prepared? Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard. Some people / establishments just don't seem to take it seriously though, like when a flight attendant told my partner she would be fine to eat the snacks they handed out and that they didn't contain nuts... the bag of roasted corn and nuts...
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Restaurants have to be able to cope with catering to common allergies, it's really not hard. To the contrary, it's actually extremely hard. When I order, I probably get something incorrect ~10% of the time. Whether fine dining or fast food. To deal with life-threatening allergies, you need to get that error rate down from 10% to, what, 0.000001% or something? You're literally asking for hospital- and pharmacy-level procedures, controls, and training. Which would make restaurants far more expensive and there would be far less of them. Not impossible, but yes extremely hard, when servers mix up orders and cooks mix up tickets and runners mix up plates and tables.

notimetorelax 2y ago

Given the assurances by the chef and the waiter I don't understand how this is not a manslaughter or gross negligence charge? This whole situation is a nightmare for someone with strong allergies.

mxfh 2y ago

Oh that's why Spotify's Healthcare Provider division has so competitive pricing.

red_admiral 2y ago

Can T&C really exclude liability in case of a death? (Unless the deceased was accused of negligence or similar.) And would an arbitration clause be binding on the executors of a will, considering the person who accepted the terms is no longer alive?

lolc 2y ago

One more notch for the adjective "disney" to mean "will attempt anything to serve own interests, morally bankrupt".

RecycledEle 2y ago

Is this a chance to strike down click-wrap TOS once and for all?

Gravityloss 2y ago

A colleague of mine has lived in the USA for years. When visiting the local office here he commented, paraphrased "the craziest thing there is that at any given time you can make a tiny mistake, and the rest of your life is messed up completely". I think ruining random individuals' lives is not a sign of a good legal system. There are some other systems that try to avoid that more, though of course that still happens, and there are some things to be discussed on what kind of contracts are legal etc. There are of course different legal traditions in the world and so on too, in the bigger picture, but still, it seems so disastrous to the individual looking from outside.

spywaregorilla 2y ago
For example, killing someone by ignoring their allergies? I find it very odd that someone would live in the US for years and have that be their main takeaway.
- wang_li 2y ago
  It’s more interesting that, I’m assuming, they categorize mistakes by the nature of the error and not the results of the error. Not checking your blind spot on an empty road is a tiny mistake. Not checking your blind spot causing a bus driver to swerve to avoid a collision, but the swerve resulted in the bus crashing into a petrol truck leading to a massive fire and dozens of dead school children is not a tiny mistake.
- phreack 2y ago
  I think a good faith interpretation is that the "mistake" was having accepted the terms of use of Disney+. Not that it was really a mistake, the system is just rigged and they'd have found another argument if not this one.
naikrovek 2y ago
our legal system was built with the assumptions that there would never be any actively malevolent attorneys representing clients, or actively malevolent judges, assumptions that are clearly very wrong. and now we have a problem, because until those individuals have a very long, very provable track record of malevolence, there is little that can be done to combat them.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

There’s a major conundrum here. If the courts let Disney be called guilty it renders all fine print not legally binding. This changes society itself. Disney is technically right. Being technically right is well defined. At the same time here the technicality they are using here sounds completely absurd. How do we maintain technical integrity of the law while taking into account exceptional cases such as this?

makeitdouble 2y ago
It would mean fine prints need to be reasonable, and what does "reasonable" mean will be decided by a judge when needed.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Being reasonable is ill defined in itself. People can willy nilly interpret things how they want. This goes both for the writer of fine print and for the reader. There is merit in following wording to the exact meaning and intent. How do I get a user to explicitly agree to something that is unreasonable then? There are times where this is the case, for example sky diving, I need the user to consent that he might die.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    A sky diving user consenting to die from unforseen problems or inherent risk of the activity is reasonable. Consenting to die from gross incompetence or straight malice is unreasonable. We need a line between the two, otherwise the common law also becomes meaningless.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Jumping off a plane is highly unreasonable from my point of view. No one should be jumping off a plane for fun because the risk is too high. This is my POV against yours. Who's POV is correct? One way to resolve this is to use Exact wording to establish this "line between the two" you are talking about. But of course therein lies the problem. You can use this "wording" to uncover loopholes. To get rid of the loopholes you can allow "reasoning" to override these loopholes. But then it becomes your POV against mine. Of course my POV is right and you're obviously wrong. Would that be the more correct way to handle things? No.

darajava 2y ago

I’ve cancelled my Disney+ subscription.

jostmey 2y ago

I wonder if arbitration is not the point. The goal might be to slow down the court system, forcing the court to pause and think about every little thing, such as arbitration, even if the court will never side with Disney on this issue

natroniks 2y ago

Reminds me of the South Park episode where agreeing to Apple's Terms and Conditions gives Steve Jobs the right to perform experimental surgery on you (inspired by the B horror flick Human Centipede). Just found the episode title, "HumancentiPad" S15 E1 from 2011

fuuuuug 2y ago

[flagged]

teolemon 2y ago

It does not seem to bother Dumbo: https://youtu.be/vIlb4-NqlG4?t=11 https://youtu.be/vIlb4-NqlG4?t=11

ghusto 2y ago

Putting aside the obvious flaw in the argument, a person died. Surely there are some kind of criminal charges that can be brought against Disney?

tpmoney 2y ago
Not every death is the result of criminal action. At best, you might find some argument for criminally negligent behavior, but that's going to probably be a pretty big reach for the landlord of a 3rd party restaurant in a mall. Criminal negligence usually requires the accused to have engaged in conduct that they knew (or reasonably should have known) would put someone in danger. Even if you say that republishing the 3rd party's menu or even collaborating on that menu extends the civil liability to Disney, I'm having a hard time imagining any argument that those actions could be reasonably known to endanger someone without some evidence that the restaurant had no allergen policies or procedures and that Disney knew that and still placed wording to imply they did.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Peaches4Rent 2y ago

I don't normally comment, but I think I just had a meltdown. I'm just in disbelief that this can work and a judge will allow it.

pessimizer 2y ago

I don't understand the difference between forced arbitration and sharia law. I don't think the courts do, either, seeing as they've ordered raped/stalked women and labor-trafficked children into "spiritual arbitration" through the Church of Scientology. In a future so near as to have happened a few years ago, monopolies and near-monopolies can force people who use their services to submit to arbitrary private legal codes and systems of judgement. It's almost like giving up your citizenship. It's like how the US government doesn't have to follow the law in Guantanamo, except Guantanamo is Walgreens, or Amazon. edit: I just had a 10-second nightmare where giving Walgreens my phone number and hitting "I accept" on the screen at the checkout, in order to get the sale price, somehow prevents me from suing my doctor for malpractice after a horrible medical accident. I thought I was just selling my privacy, but I was actually selling my rights as a US citizen.

jimt1234 2y ago

Sort-related question: Can restaurants refuse to serve someone who mentions severe dietary restrictions? Honestly, if I owned a restaurant, that's where I would lean because the risk is too high. If one of the cooks accidentally includes the wrong ingredient or the servers get the dishes mixed up, someone could die, as happened in this case. I know there's requirements to accommodate people with certain physical disabilities - wheelchairs, sight/hearing-impaired, stuff like that. But I've never heard of a requirement to accommodate all dietary needs.

amerkhalid 2y ago
I think that would be fine, I have seen at some Pakistani/Indian restaurants where they apologized and said could not remove the ingredients or prevent cross contamination.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Coverage elsewhere, alphabetical by source: From the BBC: "Disney+ terms prevent allergy death lawsuit, Disney says" <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go> From CNN: "Disney wants wrongful death suit dismissed because widower signed up for Disney+" <https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful...> From the Guardian: "Disney claims streaming arbitration clause binding in resort wrongful death suit" <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/14/disn...> From NPR: "Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because plaintiff had Disney+" <https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful...> From the NY Post: "Disney wants allergy death suit tossed because of widower's Disney+ subscription" <https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-death-suit-tossed-because-of-disney-subscription/ https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-news/disney-wants-allergy-d...> From the Telegraph: "Disney World: Cannot sue over wife's death at park as he signed up for Disney+" <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-disney-world-allergy-death-lawsuit-smallprint/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/08/14/florida-di...> (I'm editing this comment to add additional sources as they're submitted to HN and flagged as dupes...)

yieldcrv 2y ago
People skim an in person contract, “I just want to make sure I’m not signing my soul away! haha” But when your spouse clicks agree on the Playstation trial 3 years prior, its all for nothing

garfieldnate 2y ago

100 bucks says Louis Rossmann will rant about this tonight.

mvandermeulen 2y ago

Surely this is an “only in the US” moment. Or are there other countries where this could be legally valid too?

stop50 2y ago
In germany its codified. If an clause is uncommon and unexpected, its invalid. This case would not even hold up in court, since other regulations come first and would cause for the restaurant to be closed for multiple weeks

anshumankmr 2y ago

Day by day, Disney is becoming closer to its fictional counterpart, Vought Corp in the show The Boys.

silexia 2y ago

Disney has become quite an evil corporation. I would like my four kids to watch Disney classic movies, but I refuse to give such a company my dollars.

thewileyone 2y ago

Time to get personal checks printed out that say, "By cashing this check, the cashee is NOT EXEMPT from any legal action in the future."

Cecil123 2y ago

[flagged]