3 ms·

> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park resta

by misnome 7mo ago

> It's like McDonald's selling you a burger and telling you how to eat it. Or Disney telling you they are exempt from killing someone in their theme park restaurants because you signed up to Disney+… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go

jdiff 7mo ago
It gets worse with added context: signed up for a free trial of Disney+ on a PS5 many years ago.
- SkyBelow 7mo ago
  It gets worse x2: the executor of the estate having signed up for Disney+ means the estate of the deceased loses the right to sue, despite the deceased having never signed up. Like a client being bound by all unrelated legal agreements their lawyer entered into. (If I recall the details correct, it has been a while since I read into that case.)
  - rolandog 7mo ago
    Common sense and decency has departed the world's economic and legal systems for a while, huh? It now seems to be a "how evil can I be without it affecting our bottom line?" system.
    - scottyah 7mo ago
      It's all just games, they just want to win. Dollars are the overall points, but they're even willing to sacrifice some of those to win bigger cases more brutally.
jacquesm 7mo ago
Interesting, that case was just withdrawn a few days ago: https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/03/03/lawsuit-against-disney-dropped-in-doctors-food-allergy-death/ https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/03/03/lawsuit-against-di... "Disney dropped its bid to force arbitration over the streaming service’s clause in August 2024, following a barrage of public backlash." And not because it was a clearly outrageous thing to do.
- cube00 7mo ago
  The flood of Disney+ cancellations likely contributed to their decision to back down on Kimmel, kind of heartening to know we've still got some power over these mega corps.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    I have no power over any of them. I avoid them all like the plague they are.
klempner 7mo ago
Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney". This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Walt Disney World resort. If you died due to a severe allergic reaction at a normal restaurant in a normal shopping mall in Florida the mall owners would generally not be liable unless there's something else going on. The theory that Disney is liable here is more than anything based on the *restaurant featuring on their app.* The EULA for *that app* would certainly be relevant to this argument. Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. That is more than a bit of a stretch, especially for a free trial from years ago, and I'd be surprised (but IANAL) if such a theory would actually hold up in court. Still, on a spectrum from "person died due to maintenance failure on a Magic Kingdom ride" to "person died from going to a restaurant featured on a Disney+ program", if you're arguing that the Disney+ EULA is relevant, this is a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.
- colejohnson66 7mo ago
  It's my belief the Disney+ EULA claim was just the lawyers doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" shtick (no pun intended). They knew it was likely to not hold up, but tried it anyway because, if it did, it helps future claims.
- 3form 7mo ago
  >Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. >Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. Well, you know, they also could have not done _that_. With it they deserve all the flak that they've got and more, simply because they resorted to a scummy tactic, whatever the reason.
- IAmBroom 7mo ago
  Except that the theme park did present the restaurant as being part of the park, which makes it quite reasonable to hold the theme park responsible financially for the entire debacle. If a chainsaw juggler on a cruise ship cuts my dad in half while he's sleeping on his deck chair, "That entertainer was not a direct employee of Royal Caribbean" will hold exactly zero water in determining liability. All arguments were complete shite.

by misnome 7mo ago

jdiff 7mo ago

It gets worse with added context: signed up for a free trial of Disney+ on a PS5 many years ago.

SkyBelow 7mo ago
It gets worse x2: the executor of the estate having signed up for Disney+ means the estate of the deceased loses the right to sue, despite the deceased having never signed up. Like a client being bound by all unrelated legal agreements their lawyer entered into. (If I recall the details correct, it has been a while since I read into that case.)
- rolandog 7mo ago
  Common sense and decency has departed the world's economic and legal systems for a while, huh? It now seems to be a "how evil can I be without it affecting our bottom line?" system.
  - scottyah 7mo ago
    It's all just games, they just want to win. Dollars are the overall points, but they're even willing to sacrifice some of those to win bigger cases more brutally.

jacquesm 7mo ago

Interesting, that case was just withdrawn a few days ago: https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/03/03/lawsuit-against-disney-dropped-in-doctors-food-allergy-death/ https://www.allergicliving.com/2026/03/03/lawsuit-against-di... "Disney dropped its bid to force arbitration over the streaming service’s clause in August 2024, following a barrage of public backlash." And not because it was a clearly outrageous thing to do.

cube00 7mo ago
The flood of Disney+ cancellations likely contributed to their decision to back down on Kimmel, kind of heartening to know we've still got some power over these mega corps.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  I have no power over any of them. I avoid them all like the plague they are.

klempner 7mo ago

Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney". This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Walt Disney World resort. If you died due to a severe allergic reaction at a normal restaurant in a normal shopping mall in Florida the mall owners would generally not be liable unless there's something else going on. The theory that Disney is liable here is more than anything based on the *restaurant featuring on their app.* The EULA for *that app* would certainly be relevant to this argument. Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. That is more than a bit of a stretch, especially for a free trial from years ago, and I'd be surprised (but IANAL) if such a theory would actually hold up in court. Still, on a spectrum from "person died due to maintenance failure on a Magic Kingdom ride" to "person died from going to a restaurant featured on a Disney+ program", if you're arguing that the Disney+ EULA is relevant, this is a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.

colejohnson66 7mo ago
It's my belief the Disney+ EULA claim was just the lawyers doing the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" shtick (no pun intended). They knew it was likely to not hold up, but tried it anyway because, if it did, it helps future claims.
3form 7mo ago
>Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be. >Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. Well, you know, they also could have not done _that_. With it they deserve all the flak that they've got and more, simply because they resorted to a scummy tactic, whatever the reason.
IAmBroom 7mo ago
Except that the theme park did present the restaurant as being part of the park, which makes it quite reasonable to hold the theme park responsible financially for the entire debacle. If a chainsaw juggler on a cruise ship cuts my dad in half while he's sleeping on his deck chair, "That entertainer was not a direct employee of Royal Caribbean" will hold exactly zero water in determining liability. All arguments were complete shite.