Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Entertainment

Disney Gives Up On Trying To Use Disney+ Excuse To Settle a Wrongful Death Lawsuit (theverge.com) 110

Posted by msmash from the saving-face dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial. "With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," chairman of Disney experiences Josh D'Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."

The lawsuit was filed in February by Jeffrey Piccolo, the husband of a 42-year-old woman who died last year due to an allergic reaction that occurred after eating at a restaurant in the Disney Springs shopping complex in Orlando. The case gained widespread media attention after Piccolo's legal team challenged Disney's motion to dismiss the case, arguing that a forced arbitration agreement Piccolo signed was effectively invisible.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney Gives Up On Trying To Use Disney+ Excuse To Settle a Wrongful Death Lawsuit More

Disney Gives Up On Trying To Use Disney+ Excuse To Settle a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Bow before your MASTERS, and beg!

  • Disney's Lawyers said.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @11:55AM (#64721000) Homepage Journal

    "Oh, sh*t. Not only are the optics here horrible, but if this defense gets litigated, we're going to get a precedent that our forced arbitration agreement isn't worth the ink it's printed with.

    Quick! Let's come up with some face-saving way to drop the defense here, so we can use it against other people!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

      "Oh, sh*t. Not only are the optics here horrible, but if this defense gets litigated, we're going to get a precedent that our forced arbitration agreement isn't worth the ink it's printed with.

      Quick! Let's come up with some face-saving way to drop the defense here, so we can use it against other people!"

      I don't really think that's how it would play out. If they failed to demonstrate that the TOS that were signed years ago relating to Disney+ applied to eating at one of their restaurants, it isn't that the forced arbitration clause would suddenly be struck from the TOS as unenforceable, it's that the entire agreement would be deemed to not apply to the circumstances of eating at one of the restaurants. That wouldn't have any impact on the next time this came up and it actually WAS with regards to Disney+ an

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I don't think that's it at all either.

        If you had said "it's that the entire agreement would be deemed to not apply to the circumstances of eating at one of the property owner's leased restaurant spaces otherwise open to the public without admission" I think you'd be closer to correct. If Disney is sweating that outcome at all, it's only for the effect on other disputes- that people would take the headline-level reading of that outcome as license to litigate the arbitration clause in other circumstances.

      • This is also my highly nuanced take.

        This case has created a media fire storm with how disgusting the concept is. And it's easy to hate on multi-billion dollar mega-corps, especially Disney, so hence the outrage fuel.

        However, the legal system exists to resolve disputes, everyone is entitled to make the "best" defence possible when there is a claim against them, and just because a defence is argued doesn't mean it's going to work.

        So while I agree that trying to apply the forced arbitration clause from the Dis

        • Succeeded or not its unacceptable, the fact that the lawyers will have to spend their very expensive time arguing such a ridiculous argument is enough to make it unfair. I assume its not their only argument either so you are gambling extra hundreds of thousands in the hopes you will win.

          • No, Legal Eagle [youtube.com] had a more thorough analysis, and Disney arguments are not as ridiculous once all the facts are known. First of which, Disney does not own nor operate the restaurant. It leases the space. The plaintiff brought Disney into the suit because their website said the restaurant served allergen free food and he relied on that. Disney lawyer's argument is that if the plaintiff is trying to sue them because of their website, the plaintiff has to abide to TOS of the website (which says suits like thi

        • This case has created a media fire storm with how disgusting the concept is.

          Websites get things wrong all the time. Google frequently has the incorrect hours listed for businesses, every online stock checker seems to have gone to complete shit post-covid, and recently I've encountered a DC fast charger that was inaccessible after hours, because the mall had a gated parking lot. There's really nothing "disgusting" about a company having a TOS policy regarding disputes arising from incorrect information on their site. It's a frequent enough occurrence that businesses absolutely do

        • So while I agree that trying to apply the forced arbitration clause from the Disney+ TOS to a wrongful death case pertaining to eating a restaurant is twisted, I don't think that the argument would have succeeded and I can't necessarily fault lawyers for trying to test it (that said, there is a legal channel that I follow on YouTube that recently did a take on this. I haven't watched the video yet but she seems to think it was a shit argument so maybe from a lawyer's perspective she has a reason to think they shouldn't have even considered mounting it).

          The problem is that the plaintiff was trying to bring Disney into a lawsuit through the Disney website which would be covered through the TOS. Disney does not own nor operate the restaurant. It leases the facility in their park to the restaurant owners. But since Disney's website said the restaurant served allergen free food, the plaintiff sought to bring Disney into the suit due to the website as an agency of the restaurant. Disney's argument has merit in that if the plaintiff is trying to sue through the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Precisely, I came to say the same thing. Their change of heart is likely because of both of the reasons you provide as it's horrible optics for a family oriented company like theirs meanwhile I'm fairly certain they would have gotten their forced arbitration rules overturned.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, by waiving their right to arbitration they're setting a precedent against being able to rely on arbitration in future for other cases, to their own detriment. That's why they went with that argument first, because doing literally anything else would be seen as participating in the case, thus waiving their right to arbitration. (In fact, just by requesting copies of the lawsuit filing and submitting a Motion to Compel that it should go to arbitration, the plaintiff's lawyer is arguing that in itsel
    • that agreement was for a diffrent service. to try and say they where even remotly linked was just dumb.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Yep, pretty much. I think Evil Central failed to think that one through.

  • Blow back (Score:3)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @11:55AM (#64721002)

    I'm sure the blow back is HUGE over this. Rossman made an excellent point on how Disney made the best case ever for piracy of their content https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • But they still think they are right... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kohenkatz ( 1166461 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @11:57AM (#64721010) Journal
    He said "we've decided to waive our right to arbitration". That means they still think that they are legally allowed to force this into arbitration, and are only making a one-time exception due to the negative publicity of this case. I guess that's a fair warning to anyone else who will ever have major trouble in a Disney park in the future.

    • I take it as a warning not to subscribe to Disney+.

      • I take it as a warning not to subscribe to Disney+.

        No, it's more a warning that, if you've EVER accessed a Disney-related service, do not access any OTHER Disney-related service that may cause injury (or death), such as an amusement park (or restaurant).

        Since corporate ownership is so convoluted nowadays, it's probably not a good idea to watch weather on a Disney-related TV station or website, if you might find yourself in a dangerous area, like, well, anywhere with storms.

        • they cannot apply a agrement to a unrealted service to there parks. somone with some common sense chimed in and told them so they pulled the arugment before the judge did it for them.

      • I take it as a warning not to subscribe to Disney+.

        You don't have to subscribe, merely accept their trial.

        In what might be a bit of poetic coincidence, Amazon attempted to sign me up for a trial of their Prime service today. I even have an email saying "Welcome to Prime!" Somehow they threw it into my cart and it activated... even though I did not purchase anything. I spent about 30 mins with a slow-moving rep getting that undone. So here's the question.. how undone is it? Am I still under their bullshit arbitration agreement?

        • In what might be a bit of poetic coincidence, Amazon attempted to sign me up for a trial of their Prime service today.... Am I still under their bullshit arbitration agreement?

          Well, I don't recommend asphyxiating at an Amazon restaurant to find out.

        • So here's the question.. how undone is it? Am I still under their bullshit arbitration agreement?

          Most agreements have clauses that let one party terminate the agreement (by informing the other party, etc.) but other clauses that survive the termination. So I'm guessing you may still be subject to part of the agreement ... unless you can show you were tricked into signing up for Prime?

          Anyway, good luck. IANAL, so go talk to one if you're concerned.

      • Exactly.

    • they do not think anything. not like we think. the lawyer simply does its service, like any organ. does the heart think about pumping blood? no; it simply does.

      the corporation. i admire its purity: a survivor unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality. its structural perfection is matched only by its callous hostility.

      • i admire its purity: a survivor unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality. its structural perfection is matched only by its callous hostility.

        Wait, are you still talking about corporations here, or did you start narrating the voice-over for the next Alien reboot?

    • disney+ and there parks are not the same service. that agreement has nothing to do with the other. they know it and why they pulled the argument before the judge told them just that.

    • Disney thinks they're right because they are right. The entire dispute revolved around allergy information Disney had provided on their website. All of Disney's various online services have the same blanket TOS policy.

      A somewhat similar situation would be following GPS directions into a body of water [slashdot.org], but in that case a plaintiff could realistically argue that the inertia of a moving vehicle makes it difficult to avoid the mistake once they've realized the directions have lead them astray.

      It's going to be

    • The plaintiff agreed to arbitration twice in their mind. The first time was when he created an account for a Disney+ trial. The second time is when he bought tickets online for the exact visit to the park where he had to agree to the TOS to complete the purchase.
  • I think the courts would disagree with that claim, it's too bad that claim won't be decided by a court.

    • Right.

      This one was so egregious it might have had dire consequences for adhesive contracts across all of society.

      So they'll take one for Wall St. profits and keep Americans out of the inalienable right to a trial by jury.

  • Throwing gas on the fire (Score:3)

    by CEC-P ( 10248912 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @11:58AM (#64721014)
    "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."
    Hey guys, let's see how much more reputational damage we can do. WHERE DO I EVEN START?! Terms of use are product-specific and Disney+ doesn't serve food. The trial expired 4 years ago, making the agreement null and void. The wronged party was the deceased and the person filing on their behalf's ToS agreements are irrelevant. That's like saying my lawyer agreed to ToS somewhere and that affects the case.

    Making that statement is literally a blatant lie. What a bunch of assholes!!!!!!!!!!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Disney didn't serve the food either, it was a restaurant owned and operated by an entirely different company, that just happens to lease land from Disney.

      Also there is no terms of use specifically for Disney+, Disney Terms of Use apply to all Disney products. Including the Disney Springs website where the allergen information is published, which is the real reason Disney are included in the lawsuit, if you actually read the court documents like I have. The Disney+ account is just one of two examples Disn

      • the wife was mislead by allergen info published on a website

        If you think that's bad, McDonald's actually has a list of the foods they serve displayed prominently right at the restaurant and half the time the damned ice cream is a lie!

    • why do you think they pulled the arument. somone else in legal was like no way this will stand.

  • Be warned (Score:3)

    by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @12:02PM (#64721034) Journal

    ... in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,

    Disney does not even know what the word "sensitive" means. The probably had to use AI to produce that sentence.

    Also, now you know why you have to have an account for EuroDisney (don't know about their parks in other places of the world). Every bit of data you provide them can and will be used against you.

  • They're Still Assholes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EndlessNameless ( 673105 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @12:05PM (#64721038)

    Note that they "waived [their] right" to arbitration in this case.

    Disney still believes they have the right to force arbitration due to their Disney+ TOS, and their language deliberately maintains that right. They are simply letting it go this time due to the backlash.

    If they screw you over next time, you'll have to fight their lawyers over the arbitration clause before a court will ever hear your actual case. Unless you can provoke a public backlash.

    They're not interested in playing fair with their customers. They're just stepping away from a PR disaster---this time.

    • Right. They're just saving their nuclear ammo for a more strategically important battle.

      The more difficult lawyers have made it to admit mistakes and apologize for things, the worse America has gotten

  • Continuing forward would result in all arbitration pre-agreements being legally tossed out by precedent. They can't have that. The lawyers did the math.
    • Doubtful. The most likely ruling by a judge would be that the Terms of Service for a product are limited to that product (and maybe certain related products, such as grouping together GMail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, etc.).

  • "With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss"

    So Disney -- instead of categorically disowning the insanity of trying to rope someone into DisneyPlus-specified arbitration over something that had nothing to do with DisneyPlus -- is instead saying they'll skip doing so in this case because of this case's "unique" and "painful" qualities... clearly keeping the possibility of applying the insanity to whatever future cases they think won't generate quite so much publicity.

  • Here is where humans and lawyers differ. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2024 @12:25PM (#64721090)

    Humans would look at the shit-sandwich Disney created for themselves here and say, "Hold on. We need to do something. How about we settle very publicly with these people, admit that what they suffered was a horrible tragedy, and show them a bit of kindness while negotiating the settlement. We lose a few couch-cushion levels of pennies, they get a bit of recompense, and perhaps we find a decent peace between us."

    Lawyers look at it and say, "We still believe we have a right to arbitration, but, we'll play nice now and *cough* waive that right, and just let you take us to court where we'll overwhelm you with more lawyers than most cities can afford to house, let alone hire."

    I know, corporations will never do something kind, but good fuck you'd think somebody in their public relations department would at the very least say, "Hey, guys, could we maybe dial it back a touch? My evil-meter is pegging red right now. We should at least get back to orange."

    • Has there ever been an instance when a corporation (or even the police for that matter) admit wrongdoing?

      It's always a settlement was reached and no admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

      • Has there ever been an instance when a corporation (or even the police for that matter) admit wrongdoing?

        It's always a settlement was reached and no admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

        I'm sure it happened in some fictional universe. Maybe one that Disney owns?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most "humans" can't even look at the shit sammich and see Disney isn't even the ones to fucking SUE. Disney has plenty of legitimate scummy shit to complain about, but for once this isn't even on them... other than the stupid tactics they tried to use to not bother to go to court and say "we don't have any say in how to run that store, we just rent the land out".

      >Jeffrey Piccolo is suing the company for $50,000 because his wife Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction after consuming food at

    • Humans would look at the shit-sandwich Disney created for themselves here and say, "Hold on. We need to do something. How about we settle very publicly with these people, admit that what they suffered was a horrible tragedy, and show them a bit of kindness while negotiating the settlement. We lose a few couch-cushion levels of pennies, they get a bit of recompense, and perhaps we find a decent peace between us."

      Lawyers look at it and say, "We still believe we have a right to arbitration, but, we'll play nice now and *cough* waive that right, and just let you take us to court where we'll overwhelm you with more lawyers than most cities can afford to house, let alone hire."

      Your comparison of hypothetical actions by different participants left out the most important participants -- the other set of humans and the other set of lawyers who are watching your kind gentle human leaders.

      If "humans" at Disney did what you propose, a large percentage of every otherhuman who has ever experienced so much as an upset stomach or sense of depression or distress due to consuming/visiting/watching/using any Disney related product would find a large percentage of every other lawyer to follow

      • Humans would look at the shit-sandwich Disney created for themselves here and say, "Hold on. We need to do something. How about we settle very publicly with these people, admit that what they suffered was a horrible tragedy, and show them a bit of kindness while negotiating the settlement. We lose a few couch-cushion levels of pennies, they get a bit of recompense, and perhaps we find a decent peace between us."

        Lawyers look at it and say, "We still believe we have a right to arbitration, but, we'll play nice now and *cough* waive that right, and just let you take us to court where we'll overwhelm you with more lawyers than most cities can afford to house, let alone hire."

        Your comparison of hypothetical actions by different participants left out the most important participants -- the other set of humans and the other set of lawyers who are watching your kind gentle human leaders.

        If "humans" at Disney did what you propose, a large percentage of every otherhuman who has ever experienced so much as an upset stomach or sense of depression or distress due to consuming/visiting/watching/using any Disney related product would find a large percentage of every other lawyer to follow (literal) suit, because the "humans" at Disney just announced to the world that they admit they are financially responsible for negative things that happen to their customers.

        Dogs will run along the borders of the yard barking viciously at anyone who approaches as if they will kill you the moment you cross the line. That's their existence. That's the job. If they didn't someone might decide cutting across the yard is easy, or taking the deck furniture has no consequences.

        For attorneys who fight aggressively to leave not even a millimeter of daylight where the company might be perceived as responsible - that's the job.

        And this is why humanity is dying. Not in the physical sense. In the mental sense. We all have to treat each other like shit, because if we didn't, someone might not feel as shitty as us. It's a vicious circle of depression and anger. And for some reason, it's become the ideal, held to the clouds, as if this is what we've been striving for since the first multi-cell creature managed to form in the soup.

    • They never want to admit wrong doing - because that can be used against them in future cases against them. Pay some cash and agree to settle without admission is always their goal so there is no easy pile on afterwards.

      An example - a real estate developer in my area - in multiple communities cheaped out on things (aka a "25 year" roof done with 10 year materials) and also failed to properly be putting away reserve funds before turning the community over to it's owner board. Multiple law suits - each settl

    • Humans would look at the shit-sandwich Disney created for themselves here and say, "Hold on. We need to do something. How about we settle very publicly with these people, admit that what they suffered was a horrible tragedy, and show them a bit of kindness while negotiating the settlement.

      Disney shouldn't have to settle if the death wasn't wrongful. If someone old and frail happens to trip on a Bird scooter while walking along your sidewalk, then they drop dead on your front lawn, are you going to pay their family money for something that was entirely not your fault?

      Assuming here that the victim's family claims you had a responsibility to keep the sidewalk in front of your property clear and safe, even though you had a sign up saying "use sidewalk at own risk".

    • It's not about kindness... They can't easily do that, even if they weren't evil(tm), I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine a lawyer would advice that assuming liability can put you in a difficult legal position for other cases as well. And the company also has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders (of which I'm one, and if you're have any US index funds, you likely are as well).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by radoni ( 267396 )

      > "Hey, guys, could we maybe dial it back a touch? My evil-meter is pegging red right now. We should at least get back to orange."

      Thank Ryan Reynolds that Disney is not new to pegging anymore.

  • So Disney wanted to hold people to a Disney+ access EULA after they were harmed in a Disney-complex restaurant? Is that the thrust of this idiocy?
    Sounds like signing up for Disney+ is a VERY bad idea. Makes me wonder what rights you have to give up to enter a Disney property.
    I will continue to not sign (or acceed to) any legal agreement drafted by Disney nor go to any Disney property.
    Great sales job, guys.

    • So Disney wanted to hold people to a Disney+ access EULA after they were harmed in a Disney-complex restaurant? Is that the thrust of this idiocy?

      The restaurant is in a Disney complex but is not owned nor operated by Disney. Disney leases the space to a third party. Just like most lawsuits against a restaurant, the plaintiff is trying to sue everyone including Disney.

      Sounds like signing up for Disney+ is a VERY bad idea. Makes me wonder what rights you have to give up to enter a Disney property.

      That isn't quite Disney's argument. Their argument is that if the plaintiff is trying to bring into a lawsuit into a restaurant they don't own using their website, the plaintiff has to abide by the TOS of the website where it says these kind of suits are to go through arbitration. The pl

  • I really hope this is shining a light on how terrible forced arbitration is. Would love to see forced arbitration outlawed.

  • Haha. They never thought anyone else would find out about this.

  • Disney has now agreed that a wrongful death lawsuit should be decided in court following backlash for initially arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the grieving widower had once signed up for a Disney Plus trial. "With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," chairman of Disney experiences Josh D'Amaro said in a statement to The Verge. "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."

    No, not good enough. I'm not setting one foot in a Disney property (including Disneyland, Disneyworld, the Disney store, etc...) until the corporation proactively updates their TOS such that this is never a possibility again.

  • How better? They could have voluntarily offer a settlement that the surviving husband deems more than reasonable. Whatever offer they have for him would be a massive compensation towards the man, but still a drop in the bucket for them. Instead, they wanted this to go to trial, which will cost both sides significant legal fees, and then likely end up settling more than they would have offered to begin with. SMH!
    • Let's hope not. I have celiac disease and eating at restaurants is inconvenient at best. But if they do feed me wheat/barley/rye, I won't die. Disney is the one place where I eat at the restaurants with confident. No, they are not perfect. But they have processes in place for food allergies. The order is physically labeled with an allergy stamp. The meal is prepared in an entirely separate area of the kitchen. Then the food is labeled and placed on an alternative-color tray. The delivery to the gue
      • I think you replied to the wrong comment... because what you say is not one iota related to my comment.

    • How better? They could have voluntarily offer a settlement that the surviving husband deems more than reasonable. Whatever offer they have for him would be a massive compensation towards the man, but still a drop in the bucket for them. Instead, they wanted this to go to trial, which will cost both sides significant legal fees, and then likely end up settling more than they would have offered to begin with. SMH!

      Did you know that Disney does not own nor operate the restaurant? Disney leases the space to the owners. So why should Disney settle? The only reason Disney is in the suit is because the plaintiff thinks they share responsibility of their tenant.

  • Should be illegal to serve food that contains any trace of peanut and/or dairy. Consumption also illegal, but some states may allow small amounts.

  • Disney's asserted right to arbitration was based mostly on the terms for the ticket the patron had just purchased... and then a foolish lawyer mentioned the patron had also agreed to Disney+ terms years ago, thinking that would tack on a tiny little extra bit of evidence that they were bound to arbitration.

    Naturally, the media picks up the absurdly stupid Disney+ part of the argument and runs with that so nobody ever hears about the ticket purchase terms again.

    I doubt the purchase did a sufficient job of en

  • How is Disney able to opt out of the arbitration process, but the plaintiff isn't???

    • 1. Disney, not the plaintiff, is the arbiter's paying customer
      2. Who says they're not? If Disney asked to "opt opt" of arbitration and the plaintiff changed their mind and wanted to deny them that privilege and force them back to Disney-hired arbitration, they surely wouldn't get any argument!

Slashdot Top Deals

"In the fight between you and the world, back the world." --Frank Zappa

Close