Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.
Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.
Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.
Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed
I get we hate Disney but spreading misinformation is never cool.
It was a move to move it to arbitration not to dismiss the lawsuit.
Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant, so any suit mentioning them is a pointless endeavour put forth by a money grubbing lawyer profiting from a family’s grief.
Then they should have argued that instead of “you can’t sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago.”
So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?
Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.
Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.
Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.
I get we hate Disney but spreading misinformation is never cool.
It was a move to move it to arbitration not to dismiss the lawsuit.
Disney has no ownership stake in the restaurant, so any suit mentioning them is a pointless endeavour put forth by a money grubbing lawyer profiting from a family’s grief.
Then they should have argued that instead of “you can’t sue us for negligence because of a completely unrelated service you used for a week several years ago.”
So disney has no control or agency over any of its restraunts or third party vendors it overseas, controls, places guidelines on, issues quality control specifitions, and can remove at any moment?
This wasn’t one of Disney’s restaurants though. They owned the land it was on but had no say over management.