It’s one of the few streaming services in the last couple of years to actually pull a profit for a quarter, so they’re definitely doing better than most streamers lol.
Imagine being a multi billion dollar company and refusing to pay a poor family for hiring a negligent Disney staff who didn’t care about protecting their loyal visitors from allergy hazards. Disney this is pathetic. That family lost their loved one and they were only asking for 50k which is like 50 cents to Disney. How greedy can these billionaires be!?
Disney didn't even hire the staff. It wasn't a Disney restaurant, just their mall property. The incident didn't happen in the park itself, and there were a number of ways Disney could have attempted to limit their own liability here. They could have tried to argue that they were just the landlord, and any negligent actions by tenants are their own responsibility. Instead, they tried to use this case to build this company wide arbitration precedent, and now Disney has now made this claim via the lawyers that represent them.
@@ShaggyRogers1 doesn’t take away the fact that they are a multi billion dollar company who’s refusing to give up a single penny for a suffering family. Stop defending them
@@Mr.JoeMontanya why are you spouting misinformation? The defense was that it was a Disney+ account that mandated arbitration. The park wasn't involved.
It doesn't matter if you cancel u agree for the 1 month free. So if you sign the special 1 month free and then cancel it U ALREADY SIGN IT. Even if you never pay for the next month
@@imnugget8085so what. It's not like he's gonna sue Disney in future but Disney definitely got one less Perpetual customer less. The trend must continue. Mega corp only knows the power of money. They can't care less about the government or law
@imnugget8085 I think they were referring to, by them canceling, they are effectively no longer giving Disney their money. Disney has lost a customer regardless of the ToS he signed similarly to this current case. Disney is losing potential money.
Pretty good coverage but Wendy should know that $ 50,000 is the minimum threshold for the case not to go to small claims court. The actual sum is much higher and I believe the jury would be responsible for deciding the amount
The part I don't get is how is Disney allowed to use that fine print? Would the terms of the contract/TOS not expire once they cancel the subscription service?
Scope and time. Streaming is a totally different service than food preparation. Obviously, TOS applies to streaming because it is the service being contemplated by the victim but does TOS apply to a restaurant visit? Time term of TOS is an issue in that TOS expires when the service expires. If Disney is claiming TOS protection in perpetuity, that is problematic. If the effect of the TOS is to confer blanken immunity, that is also problematic.
It doesn’t matter. You already signed it. If something happens to you on Disney property, you’re SOL. This guy signed up for a FREE trial in 2019. Let that sink in.
On every legal statute, there is a finite time limit. If someone got a month's trial of Dismal Disney+, would some one not be able to sue if they suffered a tradegy even 20 years after that trial?
You can tell even these people don't know anything about Disney. The restaurant in which this women died is not owed or operated by Disney. Of course they would use any means to avoid getting sued. I hope the family doesn't get anything from Disney but that they do get what they deserve from the owners of THAT restaurant, the operation of THAT restaurant is the responsibility of the owner.
As a legal expert, she should know this. ... $50,000 is the minimum threshold to get into circuit court, which would allow the actual suit to be much much higher. That's why the suit specifically says "at least". That being said, she was right on one thing, Disney has already reversed their position.
Billy Beagle: We interrupt that encore food truck face-off at the French Olympic Village during this year's Summer Games in Paris with a message from Officer Schnauzer.
They dont have any responsibility here. They never gave away the poisoned food. The pub that paid to be in the space rented out by Disney is the one that is responsible. This is like getting angry at a mall bc auntie Anne’s messed up. Disney did nothing to cause this woman’s death.
1.) They will have a VERY HARD time proving it was the WIFE who clicked on the streaming agreement terms. 2.) This is an unrelated subsequent intervening act that doesn’t relate to the terms of streaming in your home where you are in control of your own food intake.
Here we go...Oh Disney, lately you've been asking for it. On the other hand, I don't care where I'm going, if I have allergies, I'm bringing my own food. Simple. You cannot and should not place trust in establishments that serve hundreds of people a day and expect them not to be negligent about your health. Disney is ridiculous for fighting this the way they are, and I do feel sorry or the lady who passed, but come on, she was a doctor who should've known better than to think that because it's their policy, she would be immune from getting sick because a waiter told her it was okay.
If Disney+ is a dying streaming service, they're sure the hell making people cancel their service even more.
its apparently just a contract trap
It’s one of the few streaming services in the last couple of years to actually pull a profit for a quarter, so they’re definitely doing better than most streamers lol.
Imagine being a multi billion dollar company and refusing to pay a poor family for hiring a negligent Disney staff who didn’t care about protecting their loyal visitors from allergy hazards. Disney this is pathetic. That family lost their loved one and they were only asking for 50k which is like 50 cents to Disney. How greedy can these billionaires be!?
Disney didn't even hire the staff. It wasn't a Disney restaurant, just their mall property. The incident didn't happen in the park itself, and there were a number of ways Disney could have attempted to limit their own liability here. They could have tried to argue that they were just the landlord, and any negligent actions by tenants are their own responsibility. Instead, they tried to use this case to build this company wide arbitration precedent, and now Disney has now made this claim via the lawyers that represent them.
@@ShaggyRogers1 doesn’t take away the fact that they are a multi billion dollar company who’s refusing to give up a single penny for a suffering family. Stop defending them
@@ShaggyRogers1if it didn't happen on the park itself then why are they citing that they signed over their rights when they enter the park?
I don't think they mind paying at all. But they are obviously terrified of officially bearing responsability.
@@Mr.JoeMontanya why are you spouting misinformation? The defense was that it was a Disney+ account that mandated arbitration. The park wasn't involved.
Ms. Patrick was my management professor at SDSU in 2011!
Cancelled my Disney + for this shit
It doesn't matter if you cancel u agree for the 1 month free. So if you sign the special 1 month free and then cancel it U ALREADY SIGN IT. Even if you never pay for the next month
@@imnugget8085so what. It's not like he's gonna sue Disney in future but Disney definitely got one less Perpetual customer less. The trend must continue. Mega corp only knows the power of money. They can't care less about the government or law
@imnugget8085 I think they were referring to, by them canceling, they are effectively no longer giving Disney their money. Disney has lost a customer regardless of the ToS he signed similarly to this current case. Disney is losing potential money.
It’s not an airport you don’t need to announce your exit
Pretty good coverage but Wendy should know that $ 50,000 is the minimum threshold for the case not to go to small claims court. The actual sum is much higher and I believe the jury would be responsible for deciding the amount
Looks like I’m going to be avoiding anything Disney for a long time now
The part I don't get is how is Disney allowed to use that fine print? Would the terms of the contract/TOS not expire once they cancel the subscription service?
We live in a cyberpunk world, just without the cool flashy lights and only the unrestricted corporate malpractice
No flying cars, no robot arms, just corpo-goverment BS
Boycott Disney
Scope and time. Streaming is a totally different service than food preparation. Obviously, TOS applies to streaming because it is the service being contemplated by the victim but does TOS apply to a restaurant visit? Time term of TOS is an issue in that TOS expires when the service expires. If Disney is claiming TOS protection in perpetuity, that is problematic. If the effect of the TOS is to confer blanken immunity, that is also problematic.
Disney doesn’t realize how much the general public is done with them.
The general public is so done with them they made over 3 billion at the box office… yea they’re totally done lol
didn't we been through this in south park already?
pretending like I cancelled my Disney Alphabet+ subscription. I've never signed up. I'm not missing out on that much anyways.
What?
They claim to care about all sorts of stuff but the fact they're not doing the right thing should tell you everything about Disney.
Cancelling Disney plus cause I love going to Disneyland and looks like I gotta watch my back.
It doesn’t matter. You already signed it. If something happens to you on Disney property, you’re SOL. This guy signed up for a FREE trial in 2019. Let that sink in.
Disney evil!
October 2cd whooooooooo !!!!!
On every legal statute, there is a finite time limit. If someone got a month's trial of Dismal Disney+, would some one not be able to sue if they suffered a tradegy even 20 years after that trial?
Hate crime. Cause they refuse to show the employees faces who served the food. NAME THEM.
That is not the definition of a hate crime…calm down lol
You don't know what a hate crime is. Awful mistakes happen and Disney should definitely pay for it.
@@nickperry3255 They hate their customers. Hate crime
Dude f Disney. And they dont care about bad press
BOYCOTT ALL WOKE COMPANIES MARVEL DISNEY ECT ECT
You can tell even these people don't know anything about Disney. The restaurant in which this women died is not owed or operated by Disney. Of course they would use any means to avoid getting sued. I hope the family doesn't get anything from Disney but that they do get what they deserve from the owners of THAT restaurant, the operation of THAT restaurant is the responsibility of the owner.
This should be the top comment, but idiots want to rage at Disney.
As a legal expert, she should know this.
... $50,000 is the minimum threshold to get into circuit court, which would allow the actual suit to be much much higher. That's why the suit specifically says "at least".
That being said, she was right on one thing, Disney has already reversed their position.
I want to marry Kristina and Wendy! 😍
That contract is like forfeit your right for judicial rights......
Funny how people say "evil corporation" as if there was more than one kind...
Dam, this is nasty! Come on Disney take responsibility.
Whether or not the judge accepts this, which I know they won't, they can kiss every dollar that a lot of people would have spent on them goodbye
Billy Beagle: We interrupt that encore food truck face-off at the French Olympic Village during this year's Summer Games in Paris with a message from Officer Schnauzer.
F Disney 😡 disgusting company!! I cancelled my membership when Disney didn’t want to take responsibility on this matter!!
too late. you already signed.
They dont have any responsibility here. They never gave away the poisoned food. The pub that paid to be in the space rented out by Disney is the one that is responsible. This is like getting angry at a mall bc auntie Anne’s messed up. Disney did nothing to cause this woman’s death.
My question is does this work both ways can Disney legally call the police on a Disney plus subscription holder, the contract should work both ways
1.) They will have a VERY HARD time proving it was the WIFE who clicked on the streaming agreement terms.
2.) This is an unrelated subsequent intervening act that doesn’t relate to the terms of streaming in your home where you are in control of your own food intake.
No such thing as free.
You didnt read your bank loan or credit card agreement either but you absolutely should.
Why order food that could possibly contain ingredients that could be harmful you.
Nothing but inhuman behaviour and greed 🤮
you shouldnt have disney+ if you plan to go to disney
Here we go...Oh Disney, lately you've been asking for it. On the other hand, I don't care where I'm going, if I have allergies, I'm bringing my own food. Simple. You cannot and should not place trust in establishments that serve hundreds of people a day and expect them not to be negligent about your health. Disney is ridiculous for fighting this the way they are, and I do feel sorry or the lady who passed, but come on, she was a doctor who should've known better than to think that because it's their policy, she would be immune from getting sick because a waiter told her it was okay.
Holy F*ck, I agree with Fox news isn't a statement I thought I never say lol
Disney owns fox
Buyer beware: Disney Gender Program EXPOSED By James O'Keefe | Disney Files Pt 2
why is the audio in the studio so bad... cmon, you are better than that