Attorney weighs in as Disney+ subscription threatens lawsuit after woman dies during Florida trip
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Nearly one year after a doctor died following a meal at an Irish restaurant at Disney Springs, Disney is now trying to dodge a wrongful death lawsuit by pointing to the widower’s Disney+ subscription.
Disney is working hard to become the most hated company.
You might just was well say that about every business on the face of the earth. They aren't dumb about a lawsuit happy public.
Is it the wokeness that done got them?
What does it mean trump @@philpalmer4877
Well Disney's been built as harming children so., plenty of people just forgot and didn't know to begin with
That's 150 million people who should never set foot on a Disney property.
Fortunately between the Disney executives destroying the parks and Universal making some pretty amazing attractions, that gets easier with every year.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I've never been to a Disney property and I'm sure as hell not starting now. My husband told me Universal was a great time and I'm sure it's gotten better since he was there as a kid. 😁
Wow, how can this be legal. So low.
Its legal because we live in a world where anybody can be sue anything under the sun
@@gloriathomas3245 I believe a judge will laugh at Disney.
@@Vicki_Benji whether its a EULA,TOS, or product usage agreement people don't realize that these things are written by THEIR LAWYERS and I speak from own experience having dealt with the complexities of this. The point is ALWAYS READ THE FINE PRINT. Corporations aren't stupid and neither are their lawyers.
it's not. private arbitration *never* covers criminal acts. furthermore, a streaming sub is not related to in-person visits
Considering that Disney doesn't own or operate Raglan Road makes the lawsuit scummy.
"Bob Iger willingly broke into my home and murdered my family because he was bored"
"Well did you sign up for Disney+?"
Better off let this be warning
Dont sign a contract with the RAT
Or u will end up in a TRAP
TRUMP 2024
It is perplexing that Disney chose to defend itself by citing a terms and conditions agreement related to Disney+, rather than redirecting all legal actions to Raglan Road, the tenant responsible for the premises where the incident occurred. Raglan Road is neither operated nor owned by Disney; it merely leases space on Disney-owned land. If Disney had taken the straightforward approach of distancing itself from the tenant's actions, they likely would have been dismissed from the case. This situation is comparable to someone having a severe allergic reaction at a mall and suing both the mall and a tenant, like The Cheesecake Factory. Just as a mall owner wouldn’t typically be held liable for the operations of a tenant, Disney's involvement and choice of defense seem similarly misplaced.
If it were any other company, I would assume that they know something that we don't know about how the plaintiff's attorneys are piercing whatever separation there might be. Because not only is this an extremely weak argument and it doesn't really apply due to the deceased woman not having agreed to the terms to begin with, but it's an absolutely terrible look over a law suit that probably wouldn't cost them that much money as they weren't the ones that screwed it up. It's unclear to me how Disney would be on the hook here as they weren't the ones that served the food and I'm not even sure that they had any impact on what was even on the menu.
Shouldn't those terms have expired once the free trial concluded, especially if he DID NOT continue the subscription?
Exactly. What is the point of having a contract with an expiration date means otherwise.
Yes, although in this case, the terms never applied to her, or by connection her estate, as she didn't agree to them.
Any judge that agrees with this nonsense and blocks a jury trial should be immediately fired.
You know Disney will just give pocket money to any judge plus 3 months free of Disney +
This is both the lowest of Disney and the last straw.
I can understand the TOS applying to the product or service you are purchasing/receiving but how does signing up for a 1 month free streaming service negate your rights to sue for negligence at a sit down restaurant? They are 2 very distinct products/services and only have 1 thing in common, being ultimately owned by the same conglomerate.
Scare tactics, they're trying to threaten the Husband after what happened to his wife. One thing does not have to do with the other and it's sickening. I mean, yes, you use Disney+ to watch anything but that App does not have anything to do with Disney Springs or any other Disney attraction.
@@JadenYukifan28 More or less, any time there is an argument made by one part or another, some lawyer and/or paralegal has to consult their library to see what the case law says in order to be prepared to write their response. BS arguments like that just increase the cost of litigation, even if the contract didn't even apply as the deceased wasn't a party to it.
The biggest question is why would anyone use Disney products or go-to Disney ever again???? Total PR nightmare. What were they thinking????
Before long, if you go see a Disney movie, you'll have to sign over all your rights.
Disney attorneys are scumbags for that.
It is the company.....
What amazes me most is the stupidity of Disney for allowing this to become news. I mean, people are going to see this and cancel their Disney+ subscription and/or never go to their theme parks ever again. Probably a small amount of people over all, but over the course of time, it will be a big hit to Disney’s wallet from the loss of revenue. It would’ve been cheaper for the company to cut the guy a big fat check, apologize profusely and keep the story out of the media. Incredibly dumb of the company to take this approach.
That’s what the lawyer wanted it’s a frivolous lawsuit
after the death of the toddler Lane Thomas Graves on its properties, this is Disney insulating itself
@@gloriathomas3245 what specifically did Disney do wrong?
@@shawnbradford2243 how is it frivolous?
@@bigc2626 what did Disney do?
So i can literally do anything I want in life and not get into any trouble as long as i put it in a 5000 page terms of service that someone clicks agree to?? interesting....
This is the same thing for Disney’s workers. You can’t sue them, at most they will give you lifetime park passes so you can “spend money in the park” over the years..
Don’t forget, Mickey loves his cheese 🧀 💵 🤑
Disney+ subscribers are gonna start disappearing in droves after this BS.
The sad thing is, that it is too late. The terms of service states it is forever and everything Disney. Also it is on all their apps. The guy suing wasn’t even a subscriber. He just used the free sign up but didn’t subscribe. This is so wrong
@@CarlyCarly1636 Yes, although, I would expect that the judge is going to toss it out, I hope that it isn't purely because the estate wasn't a party to the contract that waived the right to a court trial. If it's tossed purely due to a lack of a binding contract rather than the term not applying to the circumstances, that would make it tougher to know what's going to happen for other people that did actually agree to what they thought was just applicable to disputes over the service.
@@CarlyCarly1636 Is it also wrong that the family is suing Disney even though Disney does not own or operate the restaurant in question? That to me seems equally wrong.
@@hskrgradI think Disney is responsible. That company is leasing property from Disney and using the Disney Brand to boost their own, people go there because of who they are connected with. I’m sure they trusted they would not have an allergy issue because this restaurant is backed by Disney and Disney quality. If that’s not the setup Disney wants, they need to change the name from Disney Springs, similar to what happed to the Disney houses the company separated from.
Boycott Disney for this, lets cost them far more than the lawsuit and make them feel dumb af
It's not really a boycott when they destroy all the reasons people have for wanting to go.
Could this be corporate law fare?
People need to stop worshipping disney
Which is sort of ironic, given that Disney is apparently going to be installing a Walt animatronic over the objections of his closest relatives.
Disney might get it thrown out but kill disney plus at the same time
They would be better kicking out the 50,000 or win the suit n lose billions
This is a joke. I hope Disney plus bankrupts after this case is over.
Disney is disgusting
I'm pretty sure it's legally unenforceable to put anything in a service agreement like this, that the average consumer can not reasonably expect
I genuinely hope that the judge bins this and issues punitive damages.
a streaming service has NOTHING to do with criminal food poisoning. not only did she repeatedly tell her server (ignored) but she doesn't get life saving help in time (911 paramedics)
I do not think staff sat around doing nothing when she had this reaction. Sometimes a allergic reaction can be fast and strong, sometimes depending on how much they were exposed to the thing they allergic to. I am assuming someone called for ambulance. I read one article that the wife did inject her self Epi-Pen, which is a shot of medicine incase she ever had an allergic reaction. Unfortunately the allergic reaction was too strong for the Epi-Pen to help her.
She didn’t die at the restaurant. She died while she was out shopping. But it was still linked to what she ate at the restaurant in her lab report.
I think that it is important that you go look at the facts of the case before you have an opinion. First off, Disney doesn't even own that restaurant, they just rent the space out. Second, the woman had the reaction after she left the restaurant, which points to it being a small amount of cross contamination. Which is common. No one with life threatening food allergies should eat out and take that risk.
What’s that my mind going? Is this, is Disney the only company that’s doing this. I mean, let’s think about this for a moment. It’s not illegal for them to do it, so what is stopping say Amazon from doing it. Granted Amazon does not have a theme park, but are they using Amazon prime to get out of mishaps that may happen elsewhere. Is there anything stopping Twitter (now called X) from doing this when a person signs the user agreement. So that just by having an account on Twitter you cannot sue Tesla when something goes wrong with your car. Because as we all know, Tesla and Twitter are owned by the same person.
Despicable.
Despicable Me is actually supposed to be a Universal property. So, perhaps Universal could file a trademark infringement suit against Disney.
The Disney lawyers should have their Bar licenses suspended for gross incompetence.
I don't think these arguments are so bad that losing their licenses would be called for. This may be either the only possible argument to make or one that the clients are insisted be included for other reasons. It may be as simple as Disney wanting to know how far they can push those ToS for things where there's more at stake.
At my first job, a girl lost a finger but couldn’t sue either.
Nobody should visit a Disney property until this is settled. At a loss of about $5 million per day, they might notice. They still wouldn't care, but they would notice.
You know this will be forgotten in two weeks. Disney people are too mentally disabled to unsubscribe or fight off Disney
This is something Vought would claim
Amazing. This is Disney!
Going woke + bad press + more bad press + bad Star Wars press = no more Disney.
Thank you God.
At least it beats the excuses trump gives to get all his lawsuits dropped...small print and NDAs are crazy. 🤦♂️
This is BULL💩! SUE THEM! They really want people to hate and drop them don’t they? Disney is not the Disney we knew as kids, HORRIBLE COMPANY!
Really Disney. How pathetic to say you signed up years ago for a free trial and in perpetuity you cant sue Disney. If thats the case...our legal system is messed up
I was forced to sign that agreement after I already had a subscription and they merged with Hulu when I clicked the agreement I made a video saying I was agreeing to it under protest because I was forced to, to access my subscription
What wrong with arbitration? It’s a legal process. Regardless, this sad incident didn’t actually happen at a Disney property. Also, arbitration, can result in damage awards of millions of dollars. Lots of legal issues here.
america has always been hilarious but this is beyond joke level, damn this is straight up evil
But did his Wife? Id sue on behalf of my wife .....
Seeing this everywhere, companies acting so maliciously and abusing contracts. They rely on us being legally literate and have ig the time and money and know how to fight this till it gets to court
Considering a disney subscription ? Get a lawyer .
Enough to make you break out in a cold sweat the next time you hover your finger or mouse over that check box , thinking what have you got to lose ?
My question for Bob Iger and the Disney legal team: Is this the hill that you want to die on?! Just sayin'...
Hope the jury awards him 1 billion for this case
If you have extreme allergies that could cause death don't trust any restaurant. Disney is the worst. My condolences goes out to this womans husband and the rest of her family.
Disney lawyers are supposed to be smart. A better argument would be the TOS from when the couple bought the tickets from the app and that the incident occured at a place where Disney are the landlords and that this is a separate entity that should be sued instead.
Yes, although it's entirely possible that the plaintiff has some sort of smoking gun that allows them to go after Disney and the Disney lawyers have absolutely nothing to work with other than this. We'll have to see, because that argument is clearly not the one that they'd like to be making.
The thing is people don’t understand this is in everything that’s why our data is sold
You have a lot of questions but you are asking the wrong ones. The right question is why are they allowed to sue Disney for a death at a restaurant that they have no ownership, management, or control over?
You guys should interview a lawyer on Disney's side
He's on his way to France. Bon Voyage Charlie Brown!
Now everyone knows Disney you can't hide it anymore
Walt Disney would be turning in his grave!
Wow! I wish I had more money than God so I, too, could be above the law!
Have any family member not subscribed sue
It is like something a bad cartoon villain would do.
Nice try Disney there's nothing you can sign that gets rid of a law
This why Disney is failing.
Sounds like a good reason to cancel your streaming service
still the happiest place of earth or the greediest?
This "disclaimer" should never ever ever ever standup in court. Any Judge that supports this, is not a Judge.
We'll have to see for sure, but that's my suspicion. There's just too many issues with it. I can't help but thinking that this is them being forward thinking to any lawsuits that might happen in the future if an executive is driving to one of their meetings and runs somebody over.
Disney is gonna go way down pretty soon. Unbelievable. I wouldn’t even waste my money going there.
Nope unfortunately they’re gonna stay up there. Citizens are too scared to revolt or aggressively protest. Nothing changes through “voting” politics due to lobbying and corrupt judges
If this isn’t reason enough to decide to NEVER again give your money to Disney…
Think DeSantis said it's Woke...is that what this is?
It happens only at Disneys!
Well man that ain’t woke.
Nobody reads the terms and agreements! 😅
In all honesty, there's little reason to read them as they aren't written in a way that normal people can understand them anyways. The whole notion that somebody is allowed to sign away rights without having a lawyer to explain what's going on there is rather incompetent. Unless it's an expensive contract for something like a house, most people can't afford an attorney before deciding if they want to agree to the ToS for a streaming service where the most likely controversy will be for less than 1 billable hour of attorney time.
There’s laws around this. People were protected against these long terms before using software. It’s not reasonable to read it all for a product you’re about to use. I don’t know if the law still exists or applicable here.
This is BULL💩! SUE THEM!
Never mess with the mouse
Weyland-yutani-disney
Disney don't Play games
They also do not own or operate Raglan Road. How exactly is Disney liable for the death? Why aren't they suing Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc? Disney simply leases space to the restaurant...that's it.
How many other companies have similar policies that just haven’t come to light?
I was thinking amazon, what if someone would sue amazon for damaged goods but cannot cus they have Amazon prime
This is ridiculous!
Avoid Disney...
Disney sucks
BOYCOTT!!!
Wow 😂
At a time when Disney stock is tanking and Disney Entertainment doing everything to disenfranchise longtime supporters...it's amazing that their PR department ever allowed this to become public let alone make it to court. Should have done the right thing and settled this. However, it seems Bob Iger and Disney are doing everything possible to do the wrong thing in every circumstance. Millions of subscribers, current and past would be well advised NEVER to set foot on any Disney property.
before anybody jumps on the Disney hate wagon this sort of thing is not uncommon and I can speak someone who has dealt with complexities of issues like this, in this case EULA's. Just as a software developer such as Microsoft have used it EULA's protect itself from deaths and injuries that occur from the improper use of their products Disney likewise insulting for the same reason. People don't seem to realize that when it comes usage agreement these things are drawn up THEIR LAWYERS and lawyers aren't stupid.
Disney does not own or operate Raglan Road, the restaurant is leased at Disney Springs, Disney also stated they would go in to arbitration. I hate ALOT of things Disney does recently and think they as a company are loosing their way but if someone rents out a spot at a national park for a bbq and someone at that bbq dies from food poisoning do you sue the National Park or the people that serve the food and told you their was no allergens in the meal? This story has a lot of misrepresentation.
Again think about that Disney does not own or operate Raglan Road only lease a piece of land. Let's do some critical thinking before we talk sh!t.
Disney doesn't even own Raglan Road, the restaurant the woman ate at. Not sure why they are the ones being sued here. And as someone who has worked in food for over 30 years, there is no safe restaurant when it comes to life threatening allergies. There is always a chance for cross contamination unless what you are allergic to is not in the building. No matter how careful the employees are, there is still always a chance.
The wife never signed; the husband is suing on behalf of his wife. Ergo, no contract.
Don't eat at a sit down restaurant in disney springs if you have severe allergies. Just adding that little bit. It was her last.
I think it will come down to whether or not they were notified of her allergy before hand, unfortunately.
Sue the waiter and cook. They are the ones that didn't do their job and give the woman food that was not safe for her to eat and knew it wasn't. Sue the waiter and cook.
Disney used to be likable years ago, but no more! I dropped my subscription asap. I'll buy my Disney movies from TH-cam! This is such bs that is sickening! Remember when we thought DeSantis was the bad one going after Disney? He confirmed what we all are now saying!
If you’re buying from TH-cam, just understand Google, which owns TH-cam, is no saintly company either.
NDAs dont cover negligence
A lot of corporations have similar agreements in the small print.
Disney + is not Disney.
If I cancel then can I sue?
Set up for failure
So why is nobody talking about the fact that Raglan Road is neither owned nor operated by Disney? The lawsuit in this case is a money grab.
It’s still on Disney’s property
Why Piccolo is suing Disney is because he and his wife visited the Disney World website to find a restaurant where they could eat at. They chose Raglan Road because it was advertised on the Disney World website that it was great for people with allergies. They also called the restaurant and alerted the server and everything to verify the information.
@@janeyrevanescence12 Thanks for the info. I had a feeling that Disney had done something more than just own the land it was on. This should all come up during the trial, assuming that the parties don't decide to ultimately settle for some undisclosed amount of money.
I'm not sure what's worse - this or an airline accusing a female minor that she should have been aware that she would have been recorded in an airplane stall. Maybe the same attorneys? Great Streisand effect here!
Sometimes lawyers have to make the arguments the client wants, and sometimes they flat out don't have any reasonable arguments, so they go with things like that because the client insists that they won't settle.
I'm not an attorney, however I have heard actual attorneys state that court precedents essentially hold that in a contract dispute (and actual attorneys on here can correct me if I'm wrong) any ambiguity in a contract MUST be viewed in the light most favorable to the party who DID NOT write the contract, which in this case would go against Disney. So my interpretation would be that unless the Terms of Service explicitly stated that all disputes, whether or not directly related to Disney+ or this app, are explicitly covered by those Terms, then Disney's Motion to Dismiss would have to be denied.
That's what I learned on jury duty over a multimillion dollar contract between a developer and the general contractor. It's also the case that you're generally just looking at what goes on between the 4 edges of the contract as the greater context isn't always something that you can reliably discern later on.
Although, in this case, I have a hard time understanding how anybody would expect that a ToS for a streaming service would cover a wrongful death apart from maybe if the content was improperly labeled and triggered a seizure that led to a fatal head injury due to falling.
If this some how doesn't kill Disney+ then I don't what will, the amount of evil Disney is showing is almost comical.
Disney + is already losing money, I'm not entirely sure why they keep it other than the fact that they had the Disney channel for decades and this is kind of an extension of that.
I was sa by a lt of the wspd fl
Ridiculous.... the problem is that juries are stupid and sentimental, and arbitration produces fair results to BOTH parties . CONTRACTS MUST BE RESPECTED
Why is Disney being sued tho? Are people stupid
Maybe you are , does the word affiliate or partner or stake holder ring a bell for you ? Or you just commenting out of the sake of doing it ?
Frivolous lawsuits to get money, they hoped Disney would just cut a check
@@shawnbradford2243You must work for Disney.
@@nikkidarkangelpnope8400 no I live in reality. What specifically did Disney do?
@@shawnbradford2243 Suing for wrongful death when someone has in fact wrongfully died is not a frivolous lawsuit. Suing McDonald's because their coffee is hot is a frivolous lawsuit.