New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[natatomic]

No, I was an attractions CM during legacy and FP+. It was always 8:1ish.

It definitely wasn’t. Are you thinking of 80/20?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Here, the law clearly states that theme parks must put accessible parking closest to an accessible entrance.

But there are then requirements for accessible routes and entrances. You can’t have standard or premium parking that is closest to the main entrance because there is a side accessible entrance with adjacent parking.

Most of the US Disney theme parks were built prior to the passage of the ADA, so Disney has been required to make reasonable adjustments to their operations to accomodate guests with disabilities.

Most Disney parks in the US were built to meet some accessibility requirements. Florida started requiring accessibility before the federal government and their design standards helped inform the 1994 federal standards.

 

[photomatt]

These are your personal opinions on what is or is not reasonable accommodation.

Disney's reasonable accomodation (LL access for DAS) was defined by a clear policy. Mobility issues were denied DAS, but they were allowed to request return times to use the exit when a queue was not wheelchair accessible. All other requests were approved as long as the guest could provide a reasonable explanation as to why they could not wait in a queue. Most importantly, disabilities that were approved in the past are no longer being approved.

Now, Disney is denying their reasonable accomodation to people who previously had access.

It's not my opinion that LL for DAS is a reasonable accomodation. It's Disney's. I agree with it, but the decision was Disney's.

My personal opinion only applies to what I think is not reasonable, and it's not reasonable for Disney to be the arbiter of who deserves DAS and who does not when there's no clear policy and the decisions are not being made by medical professionals. Preferably, these decisions should be made by the guest's doctor(s).

I haven’t heard of the diaper suggestion which sounds far-fetched, but the others could be ways to deal with a specific problem mentioned by a specific person.

I agree that the diaper suggestion sounds outlandish. I have no way to verify it's true. I can only say that it's been repeated by multiple people in various social media posts. I don't want it to be true, but I can't give Disney the benefit of the doubt. Not in this case.

As to the bolded section, I’m not sure where you got that idea. The accommodation provided needs to address the person’s specific reason for not being able to stand in line; different people with similar disabilities can have different needs.

Agreed, and Disney is not qualified to be the judge. That's why they need to approve all non-mobility disabilities for DAS. Or, in the alternative, they need to implement what Universal is using and have the guest's doctor get involved.

As far as expecting someone to explain their issue with standing in line, this makes sense so the CM can propose an appropriate accommodation.

It's not reasonable to request a guest to go to multiple CMs on any given day and repeatedly explain their disability. It should only have to be done once every few months.

 

[photomatt]

Most Disney parks in the US were built to meet some accessibility requirements. Florida started requiring accessibility before the federal government and their design standards helped inform the 1994 federal standards.

Thank you for this information. It's clear that EPCOT was designed to be accessible, and it opened in 1982. It was one of the very first things I noticed on my first visit in 1988.

 

[flynnibus]

They would be necessary to preserve the experience for those who paid for LL access

To your credit, the paid ILL experience is a new wrinkle to the equation vs the court cases of the past. My contention though is the court isn't going to let the disabled be put below the general population just to preserve ILL optimization. They would assess if the impact to ILL meets the standard of fundamentally altering the business -- and then determine if the proposed alternative meets ALL the criteria. And that's where I think the comparisons to general population sink your proposal.

So they could say 'sure, giving out LL access breaks LL... so you don't have to do that... but you still gotta have an alternative that isn't discriminatory'.

Which is why even when burdens like what has happened with Ticketing have come up... they haven't just jumped to 'well you can require a federally recognized doctor's assessment' that we know would fix a lot of things... because it fails the other discriminatory tests.

 

[Chi84]

Disney's reasonable accomodation (LL access for DAS) was defined by a clear policy. Mobility issues were denied DAS, but they were allowed to request return times to use the exit when a queue was not wheelchair accessible. All other requests were approved as long as the guest could provide a reasonable explanation as to why they could not wait in a queue. Most importantly, disabilities that were approved in the past are no longer being approved.

Now, Disney is denying their reasonable accomodation to people who previously had access.

It's not my opinion that LL for DAS is a reasonable accomodation. It's Disney's. I agree with it, but the decision was Disney's.

My personal opinion only applies to what I think is not reasonable, and it's not reasonable for Disney to be the arbiter of who deserves DAS and who does not when there's no clear policy and the decisions are not being made by medical professionals. Preferably, these decisions should be made by the guest's doctor(s).



I agree that the diaper suggestion sounds outlandish. I have no way to verify it's true. I can only say that it's been repeated by multiple people in various social media posts. I don't want it to be true, but I can't give Disney the benefit of the doubt. Not in this case.



Agreed, and Disney is not qualified to be the judge. That's why they need to approve all non-mobility disabilities for DAS. Or, in the alternative, they need to implement what Universal is using and have the guest's doctor get involved.



It's not reasonable to request a guest to go to multiple CMs on any given day and repeatedly explain their disability. It should only have to be done once every few months.

Okay so you’re saying what you hope will be the eventual outcome of a legal challenge to the new program? Or are you just giving your opinions on what you believe is fair - like the same policy for everyone?

 

[jaklgreen]

If there were a room, at each major attraction to sit in and wait out the return time, say you went to a attraction and they said head to this room it's air conditioned, there are only 15 people in there at a time, tvs for kids chairs to sit in, for for the next 90 minutes and then when that's over you can go on the ride, I think all these arguments would be over. I also think there would be less people abusing the system. As it is, you can go get lunch, shop, ride the tea cups whatever and come back and do the ride, it's time you can spend not standing looking at the back of some guys shirt. I am not saying it's my view, but to those waiting in that 90 minute line, yes ,you do seem to be skipping it, and this people feel it's not equitable, and saying it's not is just frustrating people further.
Nobody is talking about the severely challenged, we are talking about the people that have ADHD situation and games the system to yes...skip lines.

I know what you are saying. But we really need to stop lumping everyone together. The people with legitimate issues are not the same as the fakers. I think that many here are looking at DAS usage through the lens of a healthy person and how the fakers are using it, and not how people with legitimate issues are using it for the most part.
That is why when people say, "why can't you just leave the line to use the restroom" for example, it shows a profound lack of understanding and comprehension of what it is like to have these medical issues.

 

[RamblinWreck]

In the simplest terms possible, the ADA requires entertainment venues to provide reasonable access.

Most of the US Disney theme parks were built prior to the passage of the ADA, so Disney has been required to make reasonable adjustments to their operations to accomodate guests with disabilities.

The first reasonable adjustment Disney made was the GAC. The GAC allowed for immediate access, and it was often abused. Because the GAC was abused, Disney had to make a change.

The second reasonable adjustment Disney made was with DAS. DAS allowed for guests to request return times and then use the LL, a queue with a typically shorter wait time, to acess the attraction. A clear policy was enforced where guests with mobility issues were denied access to DAS. They were required to access the attraction using a wheelchair-accessible queue. In any cases where a queue was not wheelchair-accessible, the guest could go to a CM working the attraction and request a return time. When it was time to return, they would enter the attraction through the exit. If a guest had a disability that was not mobility related, the request for DAS was approved. No documentation was required, and the CMs issuing DAS rarely, if ever, denied a request. I am using the Disneyland policy here, so please update it for WDW if needed.

Now, the DAS program is being abused. The abuse is causing LL times to increase, which decreases the value for those who paid for access. I don't think anyone here denies that Disney needs to do something. The problem is that what they are doing is wrong.

Let's take a look at some examples of reasonable access before I provide my opinion on what Disney is doing wrong.

Reasonable access when it comes to parking is having designated, ADA-compliant parking spaces near an accessible entrance to a building or entertainment venue. Access to these spaces is determined by medical professionals who issue documents that people with disabilities can take to their DMV to get a disabled placard or license plate.

Businesses provide disabled parking spaces, but they do not tell people with placards or special plates that they can't use the spaces because their disabilities don't meet their standards.

Airlines will let people with disabilities board first. We usually see them in wheelchairs, but the wheelchair is not required. All that's required is to ask a gate agent. They will mark your boarding pass and you will board in the first group, although it might be after first class if the airline has it. Airlines are not the judge and jury in deciding if your disability is "worthy". They provide equal access to anyone who asks.

Grocery stores will dim lighting and lower the volume of the music on some mornings. This is for people with sensory disabilities. Anyone can shop during these hours. The grocery store does not determine if you are disabled or not.

Concert venues and sporting events will often have accessible seating. No proof is required to access this seating. You might be asked to confirm that someone in your party requests ADA accomodations, but proof is never required.

The list goes on and on and on. Businesses offer equal access, but they don't question worthiness to use that access. The only slight exception would be for disabled parking. A law enforcement officer will want to see the placard or the special plate so they know that a vehicle is parked legally.

Now, back to Disney. Disney's solution to providing equal access to their attractions is to allow guests with DAS (non-mobility issues) to use their LL queues free of charge. This was a reasonable accomodation. The problem is that the abuse was negatively impacting the guests who paid for the service.

What Disney is doing wrong is making the determination that only certain non-mobility disabilities qualify for their reasonable accomodation.

Here is how the ADA defines a disability -

"A person with a disability is someone who:

has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
has a history or record of such an impairment (such as cancer that is in remission), or
is perceived by others as having such an impairment (such as a person who has scars from a severe burn).
If a person falls into any of these categories, the ADA protects them. Because the ADA is a law, and not a benefit program, you do not need to apply for coverage.

Examples of Disabilities
There is a wide variety of disabilities, and the ADA regulations do not list all of them. Some disabilities are visible and some are not. Some examples of disabilities include:

Cancer
Diabetes
Post-traumatic stress disorder
HIV
Autism
Cerebral palsy
Deafness or hearing loss
Blindness or low vision
Epilepsy
Mobility disabilities such as those requiring the use of a wheelchair, walker, or cane
Intellectual disabilities
Major depressive disorder
Traumatic brain injury"

What Disney is doing wrong is that they are telling people with disabilities that are clearly defined by the ADA that they don't qualify for Disney's reasonable accomodation (DAS) without offering anything reasonable as an alternative. Wearing a diaper is not a reasonable alternative. Wearing headphones is not a reasonable alternative. Practicing standing in line is not a reasonable alternative. Asking a CM for a return time at every attraction after explaining your disability is not a reasonable alternative. Disney is wrong to make the assumption that autism is the only disability that needs DAS. This contradicts the statement that the ADA protects people with "physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities."

They are arbitrarily denying and approving guests' DAS requests with no clear policy, and we have no evidence whatsoever that the people making the approvals/denials have any medical training at all. What's worse is that I have seen posts where people have been told to try again because another cast member might make a different decision. That's absurd.

I know this next sentence is going to be really hard to accept, but here goes...If a guest asks Disney for DAS for a non-mobility-related condition, Disney needs to provide it. Period. No exceptions.

Disney needs to deal with abuse using other methods. What they are doing now is cruel and heartless. Unfortunately, "cruel and heartless" is 100 percent on-brand for Disney nowadays.

They need to approve DAS for every disability? Even ones thar don’t affect your ability to wait in line?

 

[Angel Ariel]

I don't understand this. I thought genie+ rarely sells out as it is. Or are you referring to something else by "Disney increasing genie+ slots available for purchase"?

Disney didn't do all of this to lessen standby waits. They did it to make genie+ more enticing to people and make more money. That much has been pretty widely agreed upon in most DAS threads I've read.

Genie+ doesn't become more desirable if standby waits drop significantly - that would make people less interested in buying genie+, not more. While I do expect there will be visible differences in LL waits, I doubt there will be a significant drop in standby wait times.

 

[Chi84]

They need to approve DAS for every disability? Even ones thar don’t affect your ability to wait in line?

He seems to believe that accommodations must be tied to particular disabilities rather than to the specific needs caused by those disabilities.

 

[John park hopper]

In the simplest terms possible, the ADA requires entertainment venues to provide reasonable access.

Most of the US Disney theme parks were built prior to the passage of the ADA, so Disney has been required to make reasonable adjustments to their operations to accomodate guests with disabilities.

The first reasonable adjustment Disney made was the GAC. The GAC allowed for immediate access, and it was often abused. Because the GAC was abused, Disney had to make a change.

The second reasonable adjustment Disney made was with DAS. DAS allowed for guests to request return times and then use the LL, a queue with a typically shorter wait time, to acess the attraction. A clear policy was enforced where guests with mobility issues were denied access to DAS. They were required to access the attraction using a wheelchair-accessible queue. In any cases where a queue was not wheelchair-accessible, the guest could go to a CM working the attraction and request a return time. When it was time to return, they would enter the attraction through the exit. If a guest had a disability that was not mobility related, the request for DAS was approved. No documentation was required, and the CMs issuing DAS rarely, if ever, denied a request. I am using the Disneyland policy here, so please update it for WDW if needed.

Now, the DAS program is being abused. The abuse is causing LL times to increase, which decreases the value for those who paid for access. I don't think anyone here denies that Disney needs to do something. The problem is that what they are doing is wrong.

Let's take a look at some examples of reasonable access before I provide my opinion on what Disney is doing wrong.

Reasonable access when it comes to parking is having designated, ADA-compliant parking spaces near an accessible entrance to a building or entertainment venue. Access to these spaces is determined by medical professionals who issue documents that people with disabilities can take to their DMV to get a disabled placard or license plate.

Businesses provide disabled parking spaces, but they do not tell people with placards or special plates that they can't use the spaces because their disabilities don't meet their standards.

Airlines will let people with disabilities board first. We usually see them in wheelchairs, but the wheelchair is not required. All that's required is to ask a gate agent. They will mark your boarding pass and you will board in the first group, although it might be after first class if the airline has it. Airlines are not the judge and jury in deciding if your disability is "worthy". They provide equal access to anyone who asks.

Grocery stores will dim lighting and lower the volume of the music on some mornings. This is for people with sensory disabilities. Anyone can shop during these hours. The grocery store does not determine if you are disabled or not.

Concert venues and sporting events will often have accessible seating. No proof is required to access this seating. You might be asked to confirm that someone in your party requests ADA accomodations, but proof is never required.

The list goes on and on and on. Businesses offer equal access, but they don't question worthiness to use that access. The only slight exception would be for disabled parking. A law enforcement officer will want to see the placard or the special plate so they know that a vehicle is parked legally.

Now, back to Disney. Disney's solution to providing equal access to their attractions is to allow guests with DAS (non-mobility issues) to use their LL queues free of charge. This was a reasonable accomodation. The problem is that the abuse was negatively impacting the guests who paid for the service.

What Disney is doing wrong is making the determination that only certain non-mobility disabilities qualify for their reasonable accomodation.

Here is how the ADA defines a disability -

"A person with a disability is someone who:

has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
has a history or record of such an impairment (such as cancer that is in remission), or
is perceived by others as having such an impairment (such as a person who has scars from a severe burn).
If a person falls into any of these categories, the ADA protects them. Because the ADA is a law, and not a benefit program, you do not need to apply for coverage.

Examples of Disabilities
There is a wide variety of disabilities, and the ADA regulations do not list all of them. Some disabilities are visible and some are not. Some examples of disabilities include:

Cancer
Diabetes
Post-traumatic stress disorder
HIV
Autism
Cerebral palsy
Deafness or hearing loss
Blindness or low vision
Epilepsy
Mobility disabilities such as those requiring the use of a wheelchair, walker, or cane
Intellectual disabilities
Major depressive disorder
Traumatic brain injury"

What Disney is doing wrong is that they are telling people with disabilities that are clearly defined by the ADA that they don't qualify for Disney's reasonable accomodation (DAS) without offering anything reasonable as an alternative. Wearing a diaper is not a reasonable alternative. Wearing headphones is not a reasonable alternative. Practicing standing in line is not a reasonable alternative. Asking a CM for a return time at every attraction after explaining your disability is not a reasonable alternative. Disney is wrong to make the assumption that autism is the only disability that needs DAS. This contradicts the statement that the ADA protects people with "physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities."

They are arbitrarily denying and approving guests' DAS requests with no clear policy, and we have no evidence whatsoever that the people making the approvals/denials have any medical training at all. What's worse is that I have seen posts where people have been told to try again because another cast member might make a different decision. That's absurd.

I know this next sentence is going to be really hard to accept, but here goes...If a guest asks Disney for DAS for a non-mobility-related condition, Disney needs to provide it. Period. No exceptions.

Disney needs to deal with abuse using other methods. What they are doing now is cruel and heartless. Unfortunately, "cruel and heartless" is 100 percent on-brand for Disney nowadays.

I would think and hope Disney's very narrow definition of disability will be heard in court and over ruled.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

It has nothing to do with what the majority of guests actually do, it is about what they CAN do.

Do you have any experience with very young neurotypical children? The majority of them absolutely CANNOT wait in 90+ minute waits for a headliner over and over again. They would experience the exact same symptoms as a neurodivergent child if you tried.

I would think and hope Disney's very narrow definition of disability will be heard in court and over ruled.

Disney is not defining a disability. Their system is needs-based, not diagnosis-based.

 

[jennab55]

Lol, my brain is mush towards the end of the week so it’s probably me. I think if the accommodations Disney is providing are workable there’s little question about them holding up in court. I think the question is if they really are workable. If they are not, then it becomes more a question of what Disney is required to provide in terms of line accommodations. I think that’s a fairly big question mark at this point, with some people saying they will need to do more and some saying they are going above and beyond already.

I have said that legal stuff aside, I don’t think the new accommodations will work because they will probably be abused. Ironically, they sound more prone to abuse than the previous system. I think Disney would have been much better off updating their technology so that DAS is limited to specific lines for specific people. Computer programming seems to be a weak area for them however (I believe because they cut their IT department by quite a bit,) and my guess is they didn’t have the ability to roll out an updated program in the timeframe they wanted (and it probably would have cost more than they wanted as well.)

I personally think the new accommodations will be less print to abuse as many people do not want to be separated from their traveling party. That is the number one complaint I have seen about people being denied and told the queue re-entry is that they don’t want to wait away from their family.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Even if this is what happens the capacity will still be more equitably distributed because DAS users use so much more capacity than even genie+ users can.

That's possible. With DAS your return time was now plus the standby wait time. so if the standby was 90 min, DAS can return in 90 min.

The totally broken Genie+ system you can get a return time 6 hours away.

 

[Dranth]

I would think and hope Disney's very narrow definition of disability will be heard in court and over ruled.

They don't define who is disabled anywhere nor does being denied DAS imply someone isn't disabled as they offer alternative accommodations so I am not sure there would be much of a case. If people choose not to use those alternatives, that is their choice, but I doubt they will get much relief in the courts.

 

[rk3668]

Disney didn't do all of this to lessen standby waits. They did it to make genie+ more enticing to people and make more money. That much has been pretty widely agreed upon in most DAS threads I've read.

OK. I get your point.

I am not trying to guess Disney's motivation but shorter LL lines would also be a benefit to DAS users. The LLs were getting so long at some attractions that I think you could argue they were no longer a reasonable accommodation. I am thinking of my experience with Radiator Springs Racers at Disneyland here.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I personally think the new accommodations will be less print to abuse as many people do not want to be separated from their traveling party. That is the number one complaint I have seen about people being denied and told the queue re-entry is that they don’t want to wait away from their family.

Yes but those are legitimate users, not who I’m talking about.

As far as cheaters - plenty of people visit the parks with friends or as couples or solo and don’t mind being alone for a bit. And people can also stagger themselves and enter the line separately, then exit at around the same time.

 

[ditzee]

In the simplest terms possible, the ADA requires entertainment venues to provide reasonable access.

Most of the US Disney theme parks were built prior to the passage of the ADA, so Disney has been required to make reasonable adjustments to their operations to accomodate guests with disabilities.

The first reasonable adjustment Disney made was the GAC. The GAC allowed for immediate access, and it was often abused. Because the GAC was abused, Disney had to make a change.

The second reasonable adjustment Disney made was with DAS. DAS allowed for guests to request return times and then use the LL, a queue with a typically shorter wait time, to acess the attraction. A clear policy was enforced where guests with mobility issues were denied access to DAS. They were required to access the attraction using a wheelchair-accessible queue. In any cases where a queue was not wheelchair-accessible, the guest could go to a CM working the attraction and request a return time. When it was time to return, they would enter the attraction through the exit. If a guest had a disability that was not mobility related, the request for DAS was approved. No documentation was required, and the CMs issuing DAS rarely, if ever, denied a request. I am using the Disneyland policy here, so please update it for WDW if needed.

Now, the DAS program is being abused. The abuse is causing LL times to increase, which decreases the value for those who paid for access. I don't think anyone here denies that Disney needs to do something. The problem is that what they are doing is wrong.

Let's take a look at some examples of reasonable access before I provide my opinion on what Disney is doing wrong.

Reasonable access when it comes to parking is having designated, ADA-compliant parking spaces near an accessible entrance to a building or entertainment venue. Access to these spaces is determined by medical professionals who issue documents that people with disabilities can take to their DMV to get a disabled placard or license plate.

Businesses provide disabled parking spaces, but they do not tell people with placards or special plates that they can't use the spaces because their disabilities don't meet their standards.

Airlines will let people with disabilities board first. We usually see them in wheelchairs, but the wheelchair is not required. All that's required is to ask a gate agent. They will mark your boarding pass and you will board in the first group, although it might be after first class if the airline has it. Airlines are not the judge and jury in deciding if your disability is "worthy". They provide equal access to anyone who asks.

Grocery stores will dim lighting and lower the volume of the music on some mornings. This is for people with sensory disabilities. Anyone can shop during these hours. The grocery store does not determine if you are disabled or not.

Concert venues and sporting events will often have accessible seating. No proof is required to access this seating. You might be asked to confirm that someone in your party requests ADA accomodations, but proof is never required.

The list goes on and on and on. Businesses offer equal access, but they don't question worthiness to use that access. The only slight exception would be for disabled parking. A law enforcement officer will want to see the placard or the special plate so they know that a vehicle is parked legally.

Now, back to Disney. Disney's solution to providing equal access to their attractions is to allow guests with DAS (non-mobility issues) to use their LL queues free of charge. This was a reasonable accomodation. The problem is that the abuse was negatively impacting the guests who paid for the service.

What Disney is doing wrong is making the determination that only certain non-mobility disabilities qualify for their reasonable accomodation.

Here is how the ADA defines a disability -

"A person with a disability is someone who:

has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
has a history or record of such an impairment (such as cancer that is in remission), or
is perceived by others as having such an impairment (such as a person who has scars from a severe burn).
If a person falls into any of these categories, the ADA protects them. Because the ADA is a law, and not a benefit program, you do not need to apply for coverage.

Examples of Disabilities
There is a wide variety of disabilities, and the ADA regulations do not list all of them. Some disabilities are visible and some are not. Some examples of disabilities include:

Cancer
Diabetes
Post-traumatic stress disorder
HIV
Autism
Cerebral palsy
Deafness or hearing loss
Blindness or low vision
Epilepsy
Mobility disabilities such as those requiring the use of a wheelchair, walker, or cane
Intellectual disabilities
Major depressive disorder
Traumatic brain injury"

What Disney is doing wrong is that they are telling people with disabilities that are clearly defined by the ADA that they don't qualify for Disney's reasonable accomodation (DAS) without offering anything reasonable as an alternative. Wearing a diaper is not a reasonable alternative. Wearing headphones is not a reasonable alternative. Practicing standing in line is not a reasonable alternative. Asking a CM for a return time at every attraction after explaining your disability is not a reasonable alternative. Disney is wrong to make the assumption that autism is the only disability that needs DAS. This contradicts the statement that the ADA protects people with "physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities."

They are arbitrarily denying and approving guests' DAS requests with no clear policy, and we have no evidence whatsoever that the people making the approvals/denials have any medical training at all. What's worse is that I have seen posts where people have been told to try again because another cast member might make a different decision. That's absurd.

I know this next sentence is going to be really hard to accept, but here goes...If a guest asks Disney for DAS for a non-mobility-related condition, Disney needs to provide it. Period. No exceptions.

Disney needs to deal with abuse using other methods. What they are doing now is cruel and heartless. Unfortunately, "cruel and heartless" is 100 percent on-brand for Disney nowadays.

My husband and I were saying the other night that it's like Disney has hired AI NPCs who have no emotions and think only about line engineering and the bottom line. The inclusivity family company is no longer inclusive and no longer family oriented. Iger might want to take that into consideration as he realizes park attendance and movie attendance have both dropped. They'll drop even farther if steps are not taken.

 

[ditzee]

Nobody sued Disney and won over ADA accommodations. In fact, the people who have sued Disney over this have lost. Disney's legal team has lots of brain cells. They're also not going to lose money over this.

Yes, Disney did lose a lawsuit- I believe it was before 2010. You can google if you're interested. I'm going to the parks.
Yep, they are the type other lawyers refer to as "heartless" "emotionless" and my favorite, "vampires" because they thrive on sucking the blood out of plaintiffs. All adjectives, by the way, which are super family friendly!

 

[Club Cooloholic]

Yes, Disney did lose a lawsuit- I believe it was before 2010. You can google if you're interested. I'm going to the parks.
Yep, they are the type other lawyers refer to as "heartless" "emotionless" and my favorite, "vampires" because they thrive on sucking the blood out of plaintiffs. All adjectives, by the way, which are super family friendly!

One could often say the same of the plaintiff's lawyers in many cases.