Disney Says Disney+ TOS Means Man Can't Sue For Wife's Fatal Allergic Reaction 205
New submitter beamdriver writes: As is being reported in Newsday, Disney has asked a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the husband of a Carle Place physician who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant.
The company cited legal language agreed to years earlier when Jeffrey Piccolo, widower of Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, of Plainview, signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service that requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company, records show.
Kanokporn Tangsuan, died in October after dining with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, at a restaurant in a section of the Walt Disney World Resort. Despite informing the waitstaff several times of her severe peanut and dairy allergies and receiving assurances that her meal would be allergen-free, she began having severe difficulty breathing shortly after dinner. She self-administered an epi-pen and was transported to a hospital, where she later died.
A medical examiner attributed her death to anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system, according to the suit.
The company cited legal language agreed to years earlier when Jeffrey Piccolo, widower of Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, of Plainview, signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service that requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company, records show.
Kanokporn Tangsuan, died in October after dining with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, at a restaurant in a section of the Walt Disney World Resort. Despite informing the waitstaff several times of her severe peanut and dairy allergies and receiving assurances that her meal would be allergen-free, she began having severe difficulty breathing shortly after dinner. She self-administered an epi-pen and was transported to a hospital, where she later died.
A medical examiner attributed her death to anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system, according to the suit.
That is an elevated level of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Even for a classical evil megacorp.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney has jumped the evil shark! EVIL EVIL EVIL Screw Disney forever for even suggesting such a thing. Disney, like Hanoi Jane, has been banned from my life for good.
Re: (Score:2)
And when they are anyway found guilty they'll forward it to the responsible employee in question.
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:3, Informative)
Not "just a landlord" (Score:5, Insightful)
Does saying "Ragland offers allergy safe options", on their website make Disney liable for a restaurant they neither own nor operate and just act as a landlord for.
If this were as you are implying, just a landlord's website with details of the businesses they rent property to then I'd tend to agree with you. However, things are not quite as you present them. According to the article the restaurant was part of a Walt Disney World Resort so Disnet clearly have far more control over it that just a regular landlord renting out a building would have over their tennant. Since they control the resort it is very reasonable to expect that their website has accurate and reliable information about the restaurants in their resort - you can't expect the public to be fully aware of whatever corporate ownership structure you have setup.
Amazon tried this denying all responsibility approach with the third party sellers on its website and that was thrown out by the courts for exactly that reason which is probably why the Disney lawyers are now trying to pull this sort of crap. This is also why in most countries outside the US click-to-agree contracts that you have zero ability to negotiate carry almost no weight.
Re: Not "just a landlord" (Score:4, Informative)
With the Amazon case they got slapped because it got ruled that even though they weren't acting as a seller they were still acting as a distributor which made them liable for the distribution side.
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
But also in the suit is the arbitration agreement accept (or clicked on) in order to buy the tickets for the 2023 visit. But the suit includes both of them which is just dumb, they could have left off the Disney+ part and look slightly less evil.
However, arbitration agreements are, in general, dumb The whole point of arbitration agreements is to avoid lawsuits and limit damages if they ARE guilty; arbitration agreements in no way are meant to benefit the plaintiffs. They're written in such a way that whoever has the most money will win.
Personally I think it should be disallowed for anyone to voluntarily give up their rights in such a simple manner. Any giving up of rights needs to have a legal judge present to ensure that the party has full informed consent, and not just a click-through agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry about the wording. They signed into a Disney account in order to view information about the restaurant, which is where the second arbitration agreement appeared. The earlier news summary I had on BBC says "an account to buy tickets for the theme park"; possibly meaning that's what such an account is normally for, but not necessarily what the couple actually used the account for.
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
is it though. I mean putting a value on a human life is hard enough, placing that value and adding gross negligence and just compensation for same on top of it is even taller.
Just look at the basic facts here, they killed a woman because they could not simply say "I am sorry mam our kitchen isnt equipped to ensure we can provide a meal entirely peanut and dairy free."
It is a pretty bad look no matter what comes next. Would you say, 'Oh that Disney Corporation, they are such responsible citizens look how t
Re: (Score:2)
The actual cold business perspective here is clear: They failed to make the guy an honest offer. If they had, there would have been negotiations, and maybe they would have to pay 10x that much. Most people are greedy but not excessively greedy. The actual numbers would not even have mattered and no, it would not have been 2 billion. And yes, it would have been orders of magnitude cheaper than _this_ disaster.
Hence immediate actions here: Fire negotiator for incompetence. Then fire lawyers for incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not so certain. Making an offer is essentially admitting fault.
People love Disney because they can't separate their opinion of the company from that movie the loved as a child. I am not at all sure they can't/won't dig their heels in and rely on that. As another poster pointed out, this likely a delay tactic as much as anything.
More than likely they are working on how they can pin this on some hourly park/restaurant employees, in at least the court of public opinion while they argue the corporate ent
Re: (Score:3)
Making an offer is essentially admitting fault.
Then why do we see so many settlements with "admit no wrongdoing" language in them?
Making an offer is an attempt to make the other party go away. Sure, the optics may make it seem like an admission of fault, but the offer doesn't necessarily say so.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he say "at least in the court of public opinion"?
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:4, Informative)
Disney operates in a landlord tenant relationship here and the main hook was the Disney website listed bad info.
Re: (Score:2)
They failed to make the guy an honest offer.
Or maybe they did, and the guy got greedy and sued.
The standard Value of Life [wikipedia.org] in America is $7.5M, so that should've been their baseline offer. But she was a doctor, so she had higher earning potential, maybe $10M.
If it goes to arbitration, that is likely about where it'll end up.
If it goes to court, it'll likely end up about the same place after the judge adjusts the jury's emotion-driven excess, plus a few million more for the attorneys.
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent up. I'd just like to add one comment.
They failed to make the guy an honest offer. If they had, there would have been negotiations, and maybe they would have to pay 10x that much. Most people are greedy but not excessively greedy.
I agree, but greed is not the issue. Not just for the sake of the plaintiff, but also potential future victims, Disney must be punished. That means the amount of the offer (or judgement, if it goes to trial) must be a deterrent to similar negligence in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
That it didn't cause the allergy immediately is very typical of food allergies. A delay of an hour or two would not be unreasonable.
The kid at another table coughing is evidence that you don't understand the problem.
I think your real point is the final line saying "people with possibly fatal allergies should never eat in public", which is a plausible point of view, but is not, IIUC, the way the law is intended to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, probably. I do not think Disney would ever see any profit in being exposed this way. Even settling with the guy will not fix the damage now. This will haunt them.
Re:That is an elevated level of evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed!
The only way to stop or at least curtail these megacorps evil actions is to regulate them with thorough oversight, and penalties that are heavy enough as to not be built into "acceptable risk" (maybe a percentage of yearly profits up to and including 100, forced breakup, etc).
Regulations are just laws directed at companies rather than people. Most of us are not anarchist. So, inherently, not against laws. Why should a corporation be less regulated than the actual people? We have some of the strictest laws with the harshest punishments in any western style democracies. (See our prison population per capita compared to other countries)
We also need to take money out of politics to regain our democracy, and take it away from the plutocrats, starting with all corporate money. In my mind, corporations are just levers for the ultra rich and powerful to gain more of both, which means taking away from the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
we don't need to regulate them.
We need to stop buying the crap they are selling. Stop going to the parks, stop eating in the restaurants, stop paying for their services.
It is faster and more effective than getting congress critters who are on their payroll from creating a watered down legislation that is vetoed by the Executive branch and overturned by the courts.
Until people realize we the people hold the real power, and not a corrupt Government, they will be perpetual victims
It is amazing that people will
Re:That is an elevated level of evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The situation became unsalvageable when they did not manage to make a deal with the guy. Stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not going to work and they know it. The contract will be considered unconscionable and you'll see a TOS update on Disney+ in response. This is just some dummy who thought he could get away with it. Very, very foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
They're just using a tactic of delaying proceedings by any means possible.
Arbitration is way faster than going to court.
Re:That is an elevated level of evil (Score:5, Interesting)
For US laws too. In Europe you generally speaking can't sign away your legal rights. We don't have forced arbitration because even if you sign such a contract, it can't be enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything is peachy in the EU, but protections of customers and, generally, of individuals are pretty good. One reliable sign the EU is not run by big money.
Re: That is an elevated level of evil (Score:3)
It is always pointed out when i.e. there is a report about the new but inferior Ariane. Or when the EU puts a huge fine on some company. "They just want a piece of the cake! Make your own huge company evil socialists!"
The EU is just a bit more careful. We've had too many struggles in the past. It is too easy to DIY a guillotine.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't *think* this argument will work in the US either. We'll see. (Well, probably we won't. This will probably be hushed up somehow.)
Re:That is an elevated level of evil (Score:4, Funny)
Even for a classical evil megacorp.
Cruella de Vil, Mother Gothel & several other Disney villains are blushing.
Re: (Score:2)
You expect some amount of evil, but this is a shocking amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Even for a classical evil megacorp.
Or medieval -- Disney does have castles and kingdoms. :-)
That's messed up. (Score:3)
That's messed up.
Re: (Score:2)
All legal disputes of any kind forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt this argument will stand other than for disputes arising from his single month of Disney+ service
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt this argument will stand other than for disputes arising from his single month of Disney+ service
Exactly. What relationship does the online service have to do with food served in an on site restaurant? The mind boggles at the lengths a corporation will go to to avoid doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
This poor man better hope it doesn't get to the USSC, because otherwise a certain amount of gratuities might sway their opinions on when and where their TOS applies....
Re: (Score:2)
I have strong doubts even the fishiest of judges would have much time of this line of argumentation. The disney lawyers are going for a long shot, but its the kind of long shot thats more likely to doom their case by angering the judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is the kind of argument that not even the most bought judge would ever allow because his career would be OVER after that one trial.
Ever heard of Roe V Wade? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What relationship does the online service have to do with food served in an on site restaurant?
Of course, restaurants already put fine-print disclaimers on their menus about undercooked meat and potential cross-contamination of allergens in the kitchen. But when I read the above in your post, I imagined a new dystopic hellscape with EULAs on the back page of restaurant menus that have language like this:
[...] You eat at our restaurant at your own risk. You agree that any and all claims of injury or death allegedly caused by our service will be settled via arbitration in accordance with clause 52.1(c) below. Your settlement in any case will be limited to the charged amount for the meal times 10. You recognize the existence of [obscure clause in state law that forbids us from making you agree to all of this] and waive your rights under this law. [...]
Re: (Score:2)
I read the above in your post, I imagined a new dystopic hellscape with EULAs on the back page of restaurant menus that have language like this: ...
And printed in a 5 point font that requires a magnifying aid to read...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm not sure what the american justice system is like, but if its anything like the australian and uk ones, this is the kind of legal argument liable to make the lawyer sit in the corner of the room with a dunce hat on writing 1000 lines of "I will not waste the courts time with frivolous insanity arguments".
Its a *clearly* unfair clause that no reasonable person would agree to if they understood it, and if its not made clear whats being agreed to ,then its not an accurate record of the agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All legal disputes of any kind forever? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the fact that they would even try illustrates shittiness of these click-through agreements. I hope his lawyers go after this hard and get the judge to set some precedents that limit the scope of these kind of "agreements".
Re: (Score:2)
A trial judge can't set precedents, and I doubt that Disney would be silly enough to appeal.
Re: (Score:3)
But the fact that they would even try illustrates shittiness of these click-through agreements.
Actually, it just demonstrates that lawyers will try anything they think has even a remote chance of sticking. I'll bet Disney is wishing the legal team had cleared this particular motion with PR...
I hope his lawyers go after this hard and get the judge to set some precedents that limit the scope of these kind of "agreements".
The only way this could establish precedent is if the trial court grants the motion and the guy files an appeal, then the appellate court squashes it and sends it back. So, what you want here is for the judge to agree with Disney's lawyers. I think that's unlikely, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think more to the point, exactly what corporate entity would a reasonable person think he's making an agreement with? Disney+ is a subsidiary of Disney Streaming, which is a subsidiary of Disney Entertainment, which is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. Disney World is a subsidiary of Disney Experiences which is a division of the Walt Disney Company.
Disney is trying to have it both ways here. If Disney+ went bankrupt, then The Walt Disney Company would surely say that creditors have no claims on
This reads like comedy (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads like comedy. I mean holy cow how can someone be so fucking evil. I mean damn.
Re: (Score:2)
This reads like comedy. I mean holy cow how can someone be so fucking evil. I mean damn.
Lawyers, ... need I say more?
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers aren't generally evil, they have a critical job in the legal system of arguing points of law. No matter how guilty or evil a person is, not matter what crime appears to have been committed, they deserve a vigorous defense in pursuit of an appropriate verdict and sentence.
The issue comes when they argue things that are clearly not points of law.
Re: (Score:2)
I think its fair to say that the ones who work in corporate law probably have a loser set of morals - or none at all - than the ones who work in criminal law. The former are almost certainly driven more by money than any kind of higher calling to see justice done. Not that I'm claiming that all criminal lawyers are motivated by that either , but on balance more would be.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true - there are plenty of good lawyers representing righteous clients.
While that's true, most lawyers have the freedom to walk away from someone requesting their representation. That means that even though a defendant deser
Re: This reads like comedy (Score:3)
Q: How do you save a lawyer from drowning?
A: You remove your boot from his face.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Disney tainting their reputation over this?
Saying that Disney is "tainting their reputation" with this is like saying I tainted the sewers the last time I peed into the toilet and flushed it.
TOS ends with service (Score:5, Interesting)
For you and me? Yes. For Disney? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if this was legit, the terms of service end when the service ends.
I think they're being a bit cute with the wording there, he agreed to the TOS as part of the one month trial but there's no indication he cancelled. So the terms of the TOS are still binding.
Of course, that doesn't mean the arbitration clause would extend to cover the restaurant.
This sounds like something a lawyer throws out to see if the judge buys it and the judge throws back in their face. There's no real negative consequence for the lawyers so I can understand why they do it (at a certain level law is l
Account sharing (Score:2)
I'm glad I'm not paying for Disney+
Not sure why it says I'm a new subscriber (Score:2)
I've been here since 2009, although I don't post much.
Re: (Score:2)
"New submitter", not new subscriber. You may have RTFA, but at least you failed at reading the summary.
Law and Laywers (Score:5, Informative)
Basic law: You cannot sign away your right to sue over gross criminal negligence. Telling a restaurant you have a severe peanut allergy, having them promise their food will be peanut-free, and then killing you with peanut-tainted food is clearly criminal negligence and reasonable grounds for the husband's suit. A lawyer is an officer of the court and has a responsibility not to waste the courts time with obvious bullshit.
That lawyer claiming you signed away that right because you subscribe to the streaming service provided by a completely different arm of the parent corporation means the lawyer should be shot somewhere that causes them to die very slowly. Then disbar the corpse.
Re: Law and Laywers (Score:3)
IANAL but I agree wholly.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I understand the summary they didn't even subscribe - they used a one month free trial that just has the same boilerplate TOS that no one reads or is even qualified to fully understand if they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic law: You cannot sign away your right to sue over gross criminal negligence. Telling a restaurant you have a severe peanut allergy, having them promise their food will be peanut-free, and then killing you with peanut-tainted food is clearly criminal negligence and reasonable grounds for the husband's suit. A lawyer is an officer of the court and has a responsibility not to waste the courts time with obvious bullshit.
That lawyer claiming you signed away that right because you subscribe to the streaming service provided by a completely different arm of the parent corporation means the lawyer should be shot somewhere that causes them to die very slowly. Then disbar the corpse.
This is, in part, a consequence of our government deciding that mega-corps, no matter how massive they get, are completely immune from scrutiny. While we're seeing a minor reversal on that, exceedingly minor considering the number of years they've been allowed to go gangbusters, balls out, without restraint, cases like this highlight why it's dangerous. There's an argument to be made that a company that runs a restaurant capable of killing someone with negligence, probably shouldn't be in the business of ru
That would be illegal. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Basic law: You cannot sign away your right to sue over gross criminal negligence. Telling a restaurant you have a severe peanut allergy, having them promise their food will be peanut-free, and then killing you with peanut-tainted food is clearly criminal negligence and reasonable grounds for the husband's suit.
No not necessarily. Firstly your second statement doesn't agree with the first. Yes it is criminally negligent, but the "criminal" part isn't the deciding factor to invalidating a ToS, it's the "gross" part. Gross negligence isn't just based on the outcome. A normal negligent act doesn't become gross if someone dies, it becomes criminal, and this isn't a criminal suit.
Proving gross negligence is difficult as there is often a requirement of intent.
A lawyer is an officer of the court and has a responsibility not to waste the courts time with obvious bullshit.
And a Slashdotter in the peanut gallery is not a lawyer and r
Disney lawyers should be disbarred (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how would they even come up with such a ludicrous argument? How the TOS for a streaming service would in any way relate to obligations regarding food safety... Not only should the judge chew them out, but get them disbarred for contempt of pretty much everybody. Over here in Europe, allergens MUST be listed on the menu, failure to disclose such risks can get establishments fined or closed. I'd guess in cases like this, criminal prosecution for getting someone killed should be the least consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in Europe, allergens MUST be listed on the menu, failure to disclose such risks can get establishments fined or closed. I'd guess in cases like this, criminal prosecution for getting someone killed should be the least consequence.
I am seriously thjinking about setting up a Thai/SouthEastAsian/Mediterranean fussion restaurant, and call it Shellfish-Peanuts-Wheat&Milk
If we branch in europe: Do we need to list the alergens in the menu? After all, everything will be cross-contaminated anyway. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
streaming is just one way.
the other is stepping foot onto any part of disney land.
Re:Disney lawyers should be disbarred (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, how would they even come up with such a ludicrous argument? How the TOS for a streaming service would in any way relate to obligations regarding food safety...
I did the crazy thing and read the article, so I can answer this for you: Because Disney is embracing modern tech company trends and you have to create an online account to get tickets to their resorts. From the article:
In its motion, Disney said that Piccolo established his account with Disney by signing up for a Disney+ trial account on his PlayStation in 2019 and in September 2023 used his account under the "My Disney Experience" app to purchase tickets to Epcot. Tangsuan died before they could use the tickets.
In both instances, Disney said, Piccolo was notified that by clicking “Agree & Continue” he was accepting the company’s “subscriber agreement,” which includes the arbitration language.
Essentially, you use the same account for Disney+ that you use to buy tickets that you "use" when visiting Disney parks. Elsewhere the article states that there are similar terms agreed to when purchasing the Epcot tickets.
It's somewhat less insane than "you used Disney+ once, you can never sue us for anything ever" but it's still a harbinger of the new dark future where everything you do involves agreeing to a click-wrap agreement. In this case the Disney+ account and the Disney World account (Disney Springs is part of Disney World) are the same thing and have the same agreement. Welcome to the future.
The law is often an idiot (Score:2)
TOS (Score:3)
I tried to read the source article but was immediately presented with a dialog to accept their TOS, so I closed the page read fast before I accidentally assented to my future murder.
As a mango allergy sufferer... (Score:3)
I get anaphylactic reactions to mango. It's not so powerful, but it's real. When I go to a restaurant, beforehand I not only make sure that they don't serve mango on the menu, I also stay the hell away from restaurants that use Indian spices. Indian spices usually contain amchur, which is powdered mango that gives a sour tang to dishes. Then when I get there, I tell them of the allergy, and I ask what dished have mango. It's often included in dishes but not on the menu, especially in salsas.
If I had a deadly nut AND a deadly dairy allergy, I'd stay the hell away from most processed foods and probably almost never eat out. That means no "broccoli and corn fritter, scallops, onion rings and vegan shepherd's pie". She ordered two dishes that had batter ingredients likely made offsite at factories, and a third that had bread likely also made offsite. Its a Disney restaurant. Probably everything comes from a factory and is shipped in frozen. Also, anything deep fried gets prepared in the same oil as a ton of other dishes. And did they cook with peanut oil but not realize? So many ways for things to go wrong. Stay the hell home when you eat, prepare your meals, and inspect the menus beforehand. Take some fucking responsibility.
Also, Disney are clearly a bunch of evil assholes, but it's not like we didn't know this. Still, I don't think it's reasonable for restaurants to be held responsible for patrons' allergic reactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'd want to risk it, either as a patron or as an establishment....but I believe in general, frying or using peanut oil is not generally a threat to those with peanut allergies.
The common stuff is pretty highly refined and does not generally contain the proteins/antigens that set people off.
Unless they were using cold pressed or "virgin" peanut oil....that's not likely the culprit.
And these are basic commercial places...they're not going for the f
Here's the Disney+ TOS (Score:2)
Good luck making this argument fly, Disney dickhead lawyers
PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION CAREFULLY. YOU ARE AGREEING TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES
BETWEEN US THROUGH BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND INCLUDE A CLASS ACTION
WAIVER AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER.
There may be instances in which disputes arise
between us. You, on the one hand, and Disney+
and/or ESPN+, on the other hand, agree to resolve,
by binding individual arbitration, all Disputes
(including any related disputes involving The Walt
Disney Company or its affiliates
Re: (Score:2)
The key word in that is "related". A reasonable person would interpret that to mean "related to Disney+". Someone dying of anaphylaxis in a Disney restaurant is clearly not related to Disney+, so that clause prima facie does not appear to apply.
Disney's lawyers presumably know what a stretch this is, but, presumably having no sense of morality or human decency whatsoever, are pursuing this course of objection anyway.
Disgusting.
More like the House of Louse, amirite? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, and of course I've been stunned in recent years at how few actual consequences there are for the perpetrators of even blatant courtroom shenanigans. But, ah, nevertheless, this seems unwise to me. It's clearly going to be roundly mocked, and only serves to highlight the draconian abuses of ridiculous terms-of-service contracts that nobody has ever read. That won't call attention to anywhere Disney wants it called.
A few cases like this, though, and enough people might finally start to demand that Congress act to make mandatory binding arbitration clauses retroactively illegal. Companies *should* be allowed to compel arbitration as the first step, and *should* be allowed to make it binding upon themselves, but should *not* be allowed to make it binding upon a significantly weaker party.
Thank you Disney (Score:2)
I needed a laugh.
And this will be Grade A prime beef content for dozens of youtube channels for the next week.
This is such a bad argument, it seems intended. (Score:2)
Here's my head-canon/conspiracy theory:
This is such a horrible legal precedent to argue that it can't be meant in earnest. Disney must know that they're going to wrecked in the court of public opinion. Instead, Disney is intentionally putting forth a fallacious contention fully expecting a national, binding precedence against their argument.
End User License Agreements and Terms of Service contracts are invalid unless they are narrowly tailored to the action or product to which they are tied. Moreover, any a
Difficult case (Score:2)
Are they even liable anyways? As someone with allergies, eating out is always a risk. Telling the service staff that you have an allergy doesn't guarantee anything. It may not even make it back to the kitchen, and they may not be able to do anything about it. I once had a plate of nachos contaminated with peanuts somehow. You never know what you're going to get.
If you have life-threatening dairy allergies, there's no way you should be comfortable eating at any mainstream restaurant in the United States. I a
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you - except society has long held that our people serving us at bars and restaurants really ARE liable. Look at the situation for a bartender if they don't cut someone off. If the person leaves the bar and decides to drive a vehicle and kills someone, they hold the bartender liable.
That's one hell of a name (Score:2)
Kanokporn Tangsuan
I know it has nothing to do with the story, but... I want to be married to someone called Kanokporn. My wife of 30 years is so prude she may as well be called Kannotokporn.
If understand Disney's position correctly... (Score:4, Informative)
I think this is Disney's way of announcing that people shouldn't use Disney's licensed streaming service, because the license was carefully designed to be so broadly hostile.
Arrr, fortune blesses us, me mateys, as there be many contract-less, convenient alternatives to their streaming service.
As usual, the takeaway is that, generally, you shouldn't license things. (If you're not going to pirate, then insist on being allowed to buy authorized copies instead. Licensing: just say no! Classic copyright is enough.)
Imagine if the loaf of bread that you get at the store were licensed instead of sold. Anyone would agree that'd be absurd but for some reason people do that with TV now. This is something which changed during our lifetimes, and seriously, fuck that!
Seriously asking for a split by the DoJ (Score:2)
Using an arm of your business to cover up for what an unrelated leg of your business does is unethical at best, illegal at worst.
Split the company in the parks part, the IP part, the movies and TV production part and the TV channels and streaming part and see how that goes...
Even if you win you still lose (Score:2)
"IN NO EVENT SHALL OUR TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION EXCEED ONE THOUSAND U.S. DOLLARS (US $1,000)."
"If you are the party initiating an arbitration, you will be responsible for the nonrefundable initial filing fee and other applicable fees, as required by ADR Services or NAM. "
"There is a $450 nonrefundable Initial Filing Fee, payable upon filing a demand for arbitration. There is a $950 per party nonrefundable Administrative Fee, payable upon initiation of the case."
htt [adrservices.com]
Attention all thread-posters (this means you). (Score:2)
Does anybody here remember a recent spate of lawsuits filed by service providers (hotels, for example) suing former patrons for giving bad reviews online?
Okay, nothing else to see here. Move along, move along.
Following this (Score:2)
In a just world, a judge would toss the TOS as being entirely unrelated to the facts of the case. I strongly suspect the suits at Disney are judge shopping even as we speak.
Wow. Way to make a bad situation worse.
What the rest of us should take from this is that you do anything with any Disney service or at any Disney property at absolutely your own risk. You can't depend on Disney to provide even basic levels of safety. You CAN depend on Disney to have provisions in place to fight you when they screw up
Disney ... (Score:2)
Sue us because your plane crashed? Better check the TOS for the ticket on that ride again.
My not a lawyer but I know more than you do take (Score:3)
My friends have taught me that you can basically agree to anything, like "I give up my rights to sue if
I'm vaguely familiar with this case and the real problem seems to be that both Disney and the 3rd party that operated the restaurant are insisting that the other is to blame for what happened. Disney probably has the stronger case here. I don't know why, but it seems to me that the lawyers have decided to go after Disney - maybe because they have deeper pockets - and Disney is kind of pissed because really the 3rd party that ran the restaurant should have to take the blame here. So this is probably why Disney is being super dicks and insisting "You agreed without knowing it that you can't sue us".
Disney's best course of action here is to probably sue the 3rd party running the restaurant and get a court to agree that they (the 3rd party) have to answer for what happened. I've eaten at the restaurant in question and on Disney property and they do ask if you have any food allergies when you arrive. I'm not trying to victim blame here, but I do want to point out that the victim had rather extraordinary allergic problems, maybe to the point that she needed to consider that she might not ever be able to eat in any restaurant if it wasn't a dish she could be completely sure didn't violate her allergies. My oldest nephew is milk sensitive and if he gets too much dairy, he barfs it out, but that's it. When your reaction is "If you get milk, you will die", maybe you just can't take the risk that what you get in a restaurant will ever be OK enough. The victim's order included fritters and onion rings and while it is possible to prepare non-dairy, non-peanut batters for those, maybe the reality is that if it's battered and fried, there is no safe element of risk unless you make it at home.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer. But I have lots of friends who are. And I ask questions., so I know more than most non-lawyers do. Here's my take.
Not a lawyer, nor any lawyer friends, but sometime read legal stuff for fun, so I have a similar take as you.
My friends have taught me that you can basically agree to anything, like "I give up my rights to sue if ....", and you may not really and truly give up your rights, even if you agreed to do so.
Agreed. A lot of programmers take legal language way too seriously and think they can hack it. As a rule of thumb, judges are more interested in intent. If you seem to have found a "bug" or exploit in the law or a contract the Operating System (the judge) will usually refuse to exploit it.
In this case, my guess is that most courts won't agree that agreeing to a clause about streaming TV takes away all your rights to sue over something unrelated to streaming TV, even if the agreement says it does.
Agreed. No way they figured they were signing away their right to sue Disney in any context.
I'm vaguely familiar with this case and the real problem seems to be that both Disney and the 3rd party that operated the restaurant are insisting that the other is to blame for what happened. Disney probably has the stronger case here. I don't know why, but it seems to me that the lawyers have decided to go after Disney - maybe because they have deeper pockets - and Disney is kind of pissed because really the 3rd party that ran the restaurant should have to take the blame here. So this is probably why Disney is being super dicks and insisting "You agreed without knowing it that you can't sue us".
Half-agreed. Disney i
Re: (Score:3)
Sue Anyway (Score:2)
Incredulous. (Score:2)
There is a bold claim being made here, that Disney's lawyers are building their case based on the TOS for an unrelated service. Obviously, agreeing to certain conditions to watch The Simpons on the internet is not the same as agreeing to those conditions to be served food in a restaurant, and I can't imagine that Disney would be spending money on lawyers who would argue that. The claim sets off my BS Detector like crazy.
I can believe that a woman died from an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney-owned
Re: liberal hypocrisy (Score:2)
this so-called lawsuit is just hate speech against lawyers defending the natural rights of corporations, which are not only people but better people.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is Pro Money.
In countries where money can be gained via being pro-LGBT, they're pro-LGBT. As in, "pro" by making villains gay, and by including a 2-second LGBT kiss on the background of a scene 90% of viewers won't notice.
In countries where money can be gained via being anti-LGBT, they are anti-LGBT by keeping villains gay, and by deleting those 2-second scenes, which are filmed in such a way removing them changes nothing in the film.
In neither case they're pro-humans. If they could entirely get rid
Anonymous Coward. (Score:2)