Did the deceased doctor read the fine print when signing up for Disney +? I doubt it.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Wrongful Death Lawsuit and Disney's Scary Attempt
- Thread starter Club Cooloholic
- Start date
LSLS
Well-Known Member
That's how I would lean too. But I can see the question being asked if they booked THROUGH the Disney website, and the booking gave promises of allergy accommodations.
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
so bad PR for Disney means nothing because they are awesome and never do anything wrong...is that it?
again, the unfortunate gator attack is not even close to Disney trying to defend themselves not ever being sued (for anything) because someone signed up for D+
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This isn’t really an accurate description. Disney+ is looped into this because Disney finally consolidated a bunch of their online services to work with a single account. The account you use for Disney+ is now the same one you use on the Walt Disney World website.
The website is not something introduced by Disney but by the plaintiff. This individual plaintiff is arguing that Disney has some liability because of the Walt Disney World website. Disney is saying if the website is what ties them to this case then it should be considered within the structure of the website user agreement.
Never said they don’t do anything wrong. Merely said after bad PR Disney moves on and will be just fine. You said Bad PR is bad for business . It actually is just for a short time
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
I’m not sure that is true. The last several years more than ever Disney has been in the news and getting a not so favorable reputation so to speak
Some have even gone as far as saying they are done with Disney.
That’s true some have not returned to the parks and resorts. Disney went to plan B in raising prices even with decreasing attendance. With all the upcoming offerings announced in D23 it’s wait and see if this can improve business. My bet is Iger will be gone by then on his terms.
ccaron8959
New Member
Has anyone look at the back of a Disney theme park pass lately ? It's says any awsuit brought against disney must be tried in Florida .If this your money you would be not wanting to give it away . Disney is trying to keep Theirs . Right or wrong I guess time will tell. Read the article he want more than 50,000 it says 50,000 plus and lawyer fees . I would say they should settle to not tarnish their name but that has already happen trying to fight this
Mireille
Premium Member
Ooooohhhhh! Now I get it. So it's still kinda (to avoid profanity) "icky," but also being really poorly presented by media accounts by saying "Disney+ account," which, yeah, that's where they "accepted" the ToS but only because the "Disney+" account is the "everything Disney" account and that's the first place they clicked OK to the miles-long, tiny-print wall of text we all agree to every day without reading becausewhohasthetimeandineedtousethisserviceandtheyKNOWwewon'treaditanditshouldn'tbelegalbutthepoliticalsystemiscompromisedbycorporatelobbyingandhereweare. And I'm sure that's intentional on the part of the lawyer filing the lawsuit because it was a really easy way to display the insanity that these ToS agreements can be used to squash legitimate legal claims. Thank you, I finally get it.
Overlordkitty
Well-Known Member
The deceased doctor didn't sign up for Disney+, her husband did.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
OK, I had a few minutes and looked up the actual motion Disney filed. Based on the facts, most, if not all, of the criticism of Disney in this thread is unwarranted in my opinion. This is what happens when we react to things based upon news articles instead of going to the source and finding information for ourselves.
Essentially, the Plaintiff is claiming that Disney is liable because of representations made on the menu which was displayed on Disney's website. Disney's motion is arguing that the Plaintiff agreed to the clause which applies to the website. From the motion, "The Terms of Use define “Disney Services” as “sites, software, applications, content, products and services”."
The extrapolations that this means you can't have a jury trial if you are injured by a ride because you signed up for Disney+ are ridiculous. That is NOT what Disney is claiming in this motion to compel.
To me, the plaintiff trying to claim that Disney is liable because the menu containing the statements was published on the Disney website is what should be criticized. By the same argument, if a restaurant puts their menu on Facebook with similar statements and something like this happened, the estate of the deceased can add Meta to the lawsuit. More analogous would be a mall or other shopping and dining destination that allows you to view restaurant menus on the website for the mall/destination.
What about Doordash/Uber Eats? Should they be liable if a restaurant says an item is gluten free but it arrives with gluten?
Disney is named as a defendant in this suit simply because their liability insurance has much higher limits and their pockets are much deeper than Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.
Essentially, the Plaintiff is claiming that Disney is liable because of representations made on the menu which was displayed on Disney's website. Disney's motion is arguing that the Plaintiff agreed to the clause which applies to the website. From the motion, "The Terms of Use define “Disney Services” as “sites, software, applications, content, products and services”."
The extrapolations that this means you can't have a jury trial if you are injured by a ride because you signed up for Disney+ are ridiculous. That is NOT what Disney is claiming in this motion to compel.
To me, the plaintiff trying to claim that Disney is liable because the menu containing the statements was published on the Disney website is what should be criticized. By the same argument, if a restaurant puts their menu on Facebook with similar statements and something like this happened, the estate of the deceased can add Meta to the lawsuit. More analogous would be a mall or other shopping and dining destination that allows you to view restaurant menus on the website for the mall/destination.
What about Doordash/Uber Eats? Should they be liable if a restaurant says an item is gluten free but it arrives with gluten?
Disney is named as a defendant in this suit simply because their liability insurance has much higher limits and their pockets are much deeper than Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc.
Last edited:
deeevo
Well-Known Member
I have a AP so no I have not looked at the back of a ticket. All companies want to keep as much money as possible obviously but burying litigation terms deep in the T&C's of a theme park ticket is a very bad look.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The plaintiff’s lawyer is not trying to make some larger point. They’re trying to make Disney look bad and more open to a settlement. They wanted to use the website to tie Disney to the case and it wasn’t part of some larger goal.
Chi84
Premium Member
That’s not at all what Disney is saying. Just that the case should go to arbitration.
I’m sure when the time comes, Disney will allege they’re not liable.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying all of this. I had posted a criticism of Disney’s lawyers and then saw your post, so I deleted what I wrote. This makes more sense than the misleading reports. Disney’s PR department may have their hands full with this, but if they're competent then they'll find a way to get their message out there.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
And to accomplish the goal of making Disney look bad, the attorney reached out to CNN and prompted this story. Disney filed their motion on 5/31 and then the Plaintiff filed the response on 8/2. Obviously, nobody was picking up the story so prodding was necessary.
Additionally, even though the article highlights the Plaintiff's arguments against the arbitration requirement due to the terms and conditions, the attorney leads off with a different argument. The attorney is arguing that Disney can't compel arbitration because they already took actions in the case which constitute a waiver of their right to arbitration. The attorney is trying to use technicalities to argue against Disney using technicalities so he's not an altruistic angel either.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Have you read the complaint? It goes beyond just tying Disney in through the website:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes, I’m the one who shared it on this site in the first place. Nothing you’ve highlighted negates that the website was brought into this as a connection by the plaintiff.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
The entire part that you highlighted is tying Disney to the case based on the website. It is arguing that because the information was presented on Disney's website it constitutes representations made by Disney and therefore they are responsible for the alleged negligence.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
The allegation in Paragraph 11 has nothing to do with the website.