News Disney mask policy at Walt Disney World theme parks

[JoeCamel]

A cruise line is a very different situation than a theme park. There is literally no way anyone could ever provide that they caught Covid, or any other virus, in a particular location. It is impossible. People on cruises can at least make the argument that they are a "captive audience" for an entire week, so to speak, and therefore the odds are that it came from the cruise. But even then, it would be difficult to actually prove, especially if the person got off the ship at any ports of call. But a theme park? Forget it. Not a chance of proving it.

Bottom line: I don't think suits of this kind against cruise operators will be successful, but even if they were, I think the legal risk to Walt Disney World of removing a mask policy is absolutely zero. Particularly since doing so would simply be bringing them in line with literally every other theme park and amusement park in the entire nation.

Half a ship gets norovirus the suits begin to fly but with most being of foreign registry they don't win. A couple of coronas? Cost of doing business to make it go away. If they don't want the NDA they don't get the settlement

 

[correcaminos]

A cruise line is a very different situation than a theme park. There is literally no way anyone could ever provide that they caught Covid, or any other virus, in a particular location. It is impossible. People on cruises can at least make the argument that they are a "captive audience" for an entire week, so to speak, and therefore the odds are that it came from the cruise. But even then, it would be difficult to actually prove, especially if the person got off the ship at any ports of call. But a theme park? Forget it. Not a chance of proving it.

Bottom line: I don't think suits of this kind against cruise operators will be successful, but even if they were, I think the legal risk to Walt Disney World of removing a mask policy is absolutely zero. Particularly since doing so would simply be bringing them in line with literally every other theme park and amusement park in the entire nation.

These lawsuits were pre-shut down btw. So March of 2020 too before anything closed up. Disney did drop the mask requirement once since these happened.

I agree it is much harder to prove at a park than on a ship.

 

[mkt]

Bottom line: I don't think suits of this kind against cruise operators will be successful, but even if they were, I think the legal risk to Walt Disney World of removing a mask policy is absolutely zero. Particularly since doing so would simply be bringing them in line with literally every other theme park and amusement park in the entire nation.

These lawsuits were pre-shut down btw. So March of 2020 too before anything closed up. Disney did drop the mask requirement once since these happened.

I agree it is much harder to prove at a park than on a ship.

The point I was trying to make is that Disney is being overly cautious, likely at the insistence of their counsel.

 

[Tom P.]

The point I was trying to make is that Disney is being overly cautious, likely at the insistence of their counsel.

Oh, I agree. But Disney's leadership doesn't *have* to listen to their counsel and at this point, I just don't understand it. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, you can go down the road to Universal and have no mask requirement. Yes, I know, Disney is the biggest kid on the block and therefore the biggest target. But Comcast is hardly a pauper. And arguably the fact that they are being more lax than Disney would give people a great argument to make. They have very deep pockets too. And yet we don't see them drowning in a flood of Covid-related lawsuits. I just don't see the risk to Disney at this point.

 

[mkt]

Oh, I agree. But Disney's leadership doesn't *have* to listen to their counsel and at this point, I just don't understand it.

As a decades long stooge of corporate America, when there's no consensus as to what the public wants (and can be profitable), keeping in Mind that masking is one of those things there is no consensus for, a large corporate organization will default to their counsel's judgement.

 

[correcaminos]

The point I was trying to make is that Disney is being overly cautious, likely at the insistence of their counsel.

I understand the point of being over cautious. Just not sure I agree that the lawsuits matter in this case. Likely more so with the 5+ vaccine requirements though. But yes, Disney is being cautious and likely making sure we don't jump too much there before removing.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No, I agree with you there. That's why my family and I haven't been in the parks yet. I don't want to wear a mask, but I'm not going to violate Disney's rules to do it. I think as long as Disney has the rule in place, people should obey it. And given how quick people on these boards are to jump on any perceived attempt to skirt rules in other areas, I agree it's odd how it's being overlooked in this case.

My point, though, was maybe Disney *wants* it that way at this point. Maybe they are too scared to actually remove the mask mandate for legal reasons (Disney is always conservative to the point of paranoia in that regard), but they don't actually care if people are wearing the masks or not, so the message has gotten around to the cast members to just not enforce it.

I don't think Disney wants CMs to not enforce the rule. From a legal standpoint (if that's their reason for keeping the rule), failure to enforce their own rules could be seen as negligence on their part. It's still hard to prove that someone caught the virus on property, but it makes it harder for Disney to defend itself in a civil case if there is evidence of negligence.

 

[DisneyCane]

I don't think Disney wants CMs to not enforce the rule. From a legal standpoint (if that's their reason for keeping the rule), failure to enforce their own rules could be seen as negligence on their part. It's still hard to prove that someone caught the virus on property, but it makes it harder for Disney to defend itself in a civil case if there is evidence of negligence.

I don't think liability is their reason. They make you agree to a waiver before you enter that says you understand you can get COVID on property.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don't think liability is their reason. They make you agree to a waiver before you enter that says you understand you can get COVID on property.

I don’t think liability has anything to do with this either, Universal has been maskless the whole time and they aren’t being sued.

It‘s all optics, Disney gets to say they are following the federal guidelines for safety and park attendance isn’t suffering. Win/win for them.

Sure it’s annoying for some guests but as long as we keep going there’s no real downside for Disney right now.

 

[mkt]

I don't think liability is their reason. They make you agree to a waiver before you enter that says you understand you can get COVID on property.

Their waiver is too broad as to be legally enforceable. Disney still gets sued or receives demand letters, and settles on many of them.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I don't think liability is their reason. They make you agree to a waiver before you enter that says you understand you can get COVID on property.

That is true. But if they are worried about liability - or even just bad publicity - then having the rule in place but being okay with CMs not enforcing it is a bad idea, with or without a required COVID-19 waiver for guests. Having the rule in place says, "We're concerned for the safety of our guests and taking steps to minimize their risk even if it is a small step." Not enforcing the rule while it is in place says, "We put that rule in place for your safety but we're not enforcing it because we think that waiver you had to accept to be here absolves us of any liability and we don't really care if you get sick or not."

When I was in high school, I worked at the local boardwalk running the games of chance. There were signs posted at every game stating that kids weren't allowed to sit or stand on the counters because our insurance company wouldn't allow it, wouldn't cover it, and could cancel our policy if someone got hurt because we allowed it. That doesn't mean that a parent couldn't sue us if we ignored our own rule and their kid fell and got hurt. In fact, it would have made it worse for us since we knew the rule was in place to prevent that exact thing from happening. The odds of Disney losing a lawsuit over it are slim, sure. The odds of someone suing and getting themselves a lawyer who will take their case to the media are less slim, though - and puts the company in an indefensible position in the eyes of the media and many of its customers or potential customers.

 

[GimpYancIent]

That is true. But if they are worried about liability - or even just bad publicity - then having the rule in place but being okay with CMs not enforcing it is a bad idea, with or without a required COVID-19 waiver for guests. Having the rule in place says, "We're concerned for the safety of our guests and taking steps to minimize their risk even if it is a small step." Not enforcing the rule while it is in place says, "We put that rule in place for your safety but we're not enforcing it because we think that waiver you had to accept to be here absolves us of any liability and we don't really care if you get sick or not."

When I was in high school, I worked at the local boardwalk running the games of chance. There were signs posted at every game stating that kids weren't allowed to sit or stand on the counters because our insurance company wouldn't allow it, wouldn't cover it, and could cancel our policy if someone got hurt because we allowed it. That doesn't mean that a parent couldn't sue us if we ignored our own rule and their kid fell and got hurt. In fact, it would have made it worse for us since we knew the rule was in place to prevent that exact thing from happening. The odds of Disney losing a lawsuit over it are slim, sure. The odds of someone suing and getting themselves a lawyer who will take their case to the media are less slim, though - and puts the company in an indefensible position in the eyes of the media and many of its customers or potential customers.

I have never seen or heard of "Disney" being put in an "indefensible" position by the media. Besides the Disney legal department yawns at the prospect of potentially dealing with lawsuits.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I have never seen or heard of "Disney" being put in an "indefensible" position by the media. Besides the Disney legal department yawns at the prospect of potentially dealing with lawsuits.

They weren't exactly media darlings following their response to Scarlet Johansson's lawsuit. Articles such as this one don't seem to be taking Disney's side in that one - and that's in a case that Disney very well may have won had it gone to trial.

Disney & Scarlett Johansson Resolve Bitter ‘Black Widow’ Profits Lawsuit; Big $$$ Win For Oscar Nominee

With the exception of a couple of PR black eyes, the battle over Black Widow profits is over before it even really started

deadline.com

Unlike in their vitriolic filings and their shaming PR statements over the past few, Marvel-owner Disney had nothing but love today for the actor who brought Natasha Romanoff to life for them in nearly 10 separate films.

Disney incurred the wrath of many, including Johansson’s CAA main man Bryan Lourd, for not only telling the world that the actor got paid $20 million upfront for the film, but also tried to make their longtime collaborator look out and out cruel for standing up for herself. “The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the Covid-19 pandemic,” said a Disney spokesperson hours after Johansson’s suit became public.

Then, as the toxic PR blast radius continued to spread, late on August 20, Disney’s outside counsel Daniel Petrocelli, Leah Godesky and Tim Heafner of O’Melveny & Myers LLP put the company’ response in the Los Angeles Superior Court docket.

 

[GimpYancIent]

They weren't exactly media darlings following their response to Scarlet Johansson's lawsuit. Articles such as this one don't seem to be taking Disney's side in that one - and that's in a case that Disney very well may have won had it gone to trial.

Disney & Scarlett Johansson Resolve Bitter ‘Black Widow’ Profits Lawsuit; Big $$$ Win For Oscar Nominee

With the exception of a couple of PR black eyes, the battle over Black Widow profits is over before it even really started

deadline.com

The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit BLIP was a very brief feeding frenzy by story hungry entertainment media. After a brief flash all parties sat down, resolved the differences and walked away happy. The story is now nothing and no one cares.

 

[DisneyCane]

Their waiver is too broad as to be legally enforceable. Disney still gets sued or receives demand letters, and settles on many of them.

Demand letters would be private but if they were actually sued it would show up on the publicly searchable court records even if they end up settling. Have you searched to find them?

 

[bdearl41]

There's four federal lawsuits against DCL right now from passengers who allegedly caught Covid while on a cruise.

Disney's being overly cautious.

Honestly if I ran a cruise company. You’re signing a waiver to get on right now.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The Scarlett Johansson lawsuit BLIP was a very brief feeding frenzy by story hungry entertainment media. After a brief flash all parties sat down, resolved the differences and walked away happy. The story is now nothing and no one cares.

I never claimed that they didn't resolve their differences or that the story is still a big deal, just that Disney got blasted for how they handled when it was unfolding. There is nothing defensible about a media company trashing a big star like that - especially when it's someone they planned to work with in the future. There were plenty of ways they could have defended themselves (or simply said that they won't comment on pending litigation) without trying to damage her reputation. Even if they thought they did nothing wrong, why risk alienating not only Scarlett Johansson but also other stars who could look at those statements and think, "Well why would I ever want to work with Disney when I have my choice of who to work with?" You said they never get put in that position by the media, so I gave a very recent example of a time that they were in exactly that position.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

"Well why would I ever want to work with Disney when I have my choice of who to work with?"

While I don’t agree with what they did to Scarlett, with the large share of the entertainment industry owned by Disney, actors don’t really have too much of a choice. IMO

 

[mkt]

Demand letters would be private but if they were actually sued it would show up on the publicly searchable court records even if they end up settling. Have you searched to find them?

I have. Most of the lawsuits right now are right at Florida's statute of limitations, so they're from 2017 claims that weren't successfully settled out of court.

Wait until 2023-2025, then you'll start seeing suits from pandemic times.

 

[Tom P.]

I think they should just change their waiver to say, "You are hereby notified that by coming to Walt Disney World, we believe that you are going to die. If you make it out alive, good for you, but we don't think you will. So enter at your own risk." Problem solved.