4 ms·

Louis Rossmann is with you on that! “Disney creates best argument for piracy in a century” https://youtu.be/ikA9KkiTH-c https://youtu.be/ikA9KkiTH-c It’s a v

Louis Rossmann is with you on that! “Disney creates best argument for piracy in a century” https://youtu.be/ikA9KkiTH-c https://youtu.be/ikA9KkiTH-c It’s a video he posted ~1 hour ago, about this case with Disney and the food poisoning that killed customer in their supposedly allergy-friendly restaurant.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Disney claims it is not their restaurant: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-sue-wifes-death-agreed-disney-terms-service-rcna166594 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-su... > A spokesperson for Disney told NBC News: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
- JohnFen 2y ago
  What a load of nonsense. If Disney really isn't legally responsible for that restaurant, there is a common and established way of getting their name off the lawsuit. It's quite common when a lawsuit is filed that everyone even remotely connected gets named, then those who aren't involved petition the court to get their name dropped. I've been a part of several lawsuits in this way, and getting dropped has never been a problem.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  BS. If that was the case (Disney doesn't own or operate the restaurant), then that would've been Disney's first motion to the court. But it wasn't. Their initial argument was that the Disney+ EULA binds the dude to arbitration.
AndrewOMartin 2y ago
Their argument for not watching 99% of their output is even stronger. Most of that tripe is overpriced even when pirated. I'm sure that know that global free distribution is doing them some good else this crack down on it even harder.

lotsofpulp 2y ago

Disney claims it is not their restaurant: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-sue-wifes-death-agreed-disney-terms-service-rcna166594 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-su... > A spokesperson for Disney told NBC News: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

JohnFen 2y ago
What a load of nonsense. If Disney really isn't legally responsible for that restaurant, there is a common and established way of getting their name off the lawsuit. It's quite common when a lawsuit is filed that everyone even remotely connected gets named, then those who aren't involved petition the court to get their name dropped. I've been a part of several lawsuits in this way, and getting dropped has never been a problem.
jimt1234 2y ago
BS. If that was the case (Disney doesn't own or operate the restaurant), then that would've been Disney's first motion to the court. But it wasn't. Their initial argument was that the Disney+ EULA binds the dude to arbitration.

AndrewOMartin 2y ago

Their argument for not watching 99% of their output is even stronger. Most of that tripe is overpriced even when pirated. I'm sure that know that global free distribution is doing them some good else this crack down on it even harder.