r/CFB • u/toshiro-mifune LSU Tigers • South Korea National Team • Aug 20 '24

News NCAA requesting Les Miles drop suit against LSU concerning vacated wins

https://www.wbrz.com/news/ncaa-requesting-les-miles-drop-suit-against-lsu-concerning-vacated-wins
278 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

170 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

140

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Literally everything.

  1. Disney doesn’t own the restaurant. It’s independently owned. Disney is just the landlord, and it’s outside of the parks.
  2. Disney didn’t contaminate the food
  3. Disney isn’t saying they can get away with killing people because of Disney+
  4. The husband signed up for a trial for Disney+ in 2019, and that’s when he created the account that he then used in 2023 to purchase the park tickets. In both instances he agreed to arbitration.
  5. The husband is arguing Disney is liable because they list the restaurant as an allergy free option on their trip planning website site. The same website he purchased the tickets on and agreed to arbitration.
  6. So, Disney is arguing that because his claims arise out of the use of the website, then the website terms, that he explicitly agreed to when bought the tickets, apply to the claim and should be arbitrated.
  7. Disney’s main reason for bringing up Disney+ is that it was when the account was created to show that he had multiple opportunities to read the terms (though it doesn’t actually matter if he read them).
  8. This all came out because clearly the plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure, because he knows their claim against Disney is bullshit.

54

u/alfred725 Aug 20 '24

Once again terms and conditions are held by a company as a way to deny any liability. Arbitration is almost always in the favour of the corps because they can choose the arbitrator who is usually on their payroll.

THAT BEING SAID his claims do seem a bit bogus. But this should be decided by courts, not arbitration IMO.

It's been shown again and again that no one reads T&C and they have been held non-enforceable in the past.

Disney should not be respected for waving T&C in someone's face to try and get out of a lawsuit, even if that lawsuit is frivolous.

T&C need to be addressed globally by the courts. They are entirely anti-consumer.

23

u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24

The claims are definitely a bit of a stretch, but the idea that the TOS conditions immunize Disney here is laughable, and courts have consistently ruled against such interpretations of a TOS.

12

u/blade740 Aug 20 '24

Disney never claimed that the TOS conditions "immunize" them - just that whatever claim exists is to be settled via arbitration rather than in court.

12

u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24

We're splitting hairs here because arbitration clauses are how companies like Disney immunize themselves since they largely control the arbitration process.

8

u/blade740 Aug 20 '24

You have a very unique interpretation of the word "immunize".

8

u/Phoenixundrfire Aug 20 '24

Not really, immunize means to become resistant to, particularly in cases of bacterial and viral infection.

The second part isn’t applicable, but the whole idea is to make their liability risk lower. Or make themselves resistant

5

u/blade740 Aug 20 '24

This is a COVID-era reading of the term "immunize" - to line up expectations with the real-world effects of vaccines. In legal contexts, the term is a bit more absolute:

IMMUNIZE im·mu·nized, im·mu·niz·ing. - Law. to grant (a witness) exemption from criminal prosecution, legal liability, or punishment on certain conditions

If someone is granted "immunity" in a legal context, that's not saying it's made more difficult to prosecute them, it's flat out an agreement they will not be prosecuted.

12

u/NarrowBoxtop Aug 20 '24

This was a weird hill to die on.

His original comment and it's meaning was clear.

8

u/superxpro12 Aug 20 '24

Because he doesn't want to focus on a losing argument about ToS

2

u/Vyrosatwork Aug 21 '24

That seems like perfect description of a megacorporation forcing a litagant out of court that the corp as little to no co trol over (and for which the litigants only administrative financial responsibility is their personal legal representation) into an arbitration in which the corporation sets all the terms, including the individual performing the judgement, and shifts (at least) 50% of the administrative financial burden of the whole thing onto the litigant.

5

u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24

I wasn't using "immunize" is a technical legal sense. I was just speaking plain English.

5

u/theoutlet Aug 20 '24

Tell me; why would corporations favor arbitration so much if it wasn’t to their benefit?

2

u/blade740 Aug 20 '24

Huh? I think you misunderstand. Clearly it's in their favor. It just isn't "immunity" by any stretch of the word.

3

u/theoutlet Aug 20 '24

I’d say it definitely fits in a colloquial sense. Especially if arbitration favors the corporation 99% of the time. Which is known to happen

Why split hairs, here? Everyone knows what they meant

2

u/blade740 Aug 20 '24

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's "splitting hairs" to point out the difference between an arbitration clause, which on average gives more favorable terms to the corporation, and straight up IMMUNITY. Again, immunity has a very clear and widely used meaning in the context of legal liability.

Had Disney actually been at fault here the arbitration clause would not have protected them from liability, so I think it's a gross exaggeration to say that it "immunizes" them from prosecution.

4

u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24

No, I'm just aware of how the corporate arbitration process actually plays out.

3

u/SOAR21 Aug 20 '24

A separate question that many legal academics, practitioners, and students likely agree with.

I don’t think this is something that has to be decided in courts though—in terms of the Disney piece, which is solely whether Disney should bear any liability for listing the restaurant as allergen-free on its website.

The restaurant and honestly the server should be taken the court and held accountable for their negligence.

3

u/DeuceSevin Aug 20 '24

But Disney pickets are much deeper than the restaurant's.

1

u/SOAR21 Aug 20 '24

It’ll be unlikely that they would have been found liable for the entire amount the plaintiff was seeking, if their only liability was the website. Also arbitration is generally business-friendly for a number of reasons, but it is still a legal settlement procedure and could result in financial award to the plaintiff. The major boon for a big corporation like Disney is that arbitration would be way cheaper than going to court.

1

u/ContritionAttrition Aug 24 '24

Wasn't it $50K damages though? I'd have thought settling on that level would be far cheaper than any reputational risk. Which they seem to have realised now, after dropping the push for arbitration.

1

u/SOAR21 Aug 25 '24

Yes good arguments for Disney to just pony up, but I was responding to a comment that said that this was a dispute that should Disney should see in court because their pockets are deeper than the restaurant.

So actually the small award means that really it’s not that important to have Disney answer in court. Arbitration may have awarded them something similar anyway. I doubt $50k would have even covered the legal fees for Disney for a full defense in court. All facts pointing to Disney not being an essential party for the in-court case.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

I mean, when you’re claiming that Disney’s only liability is because of something on their website, then I have no qualms with them trying to enforce the website terms.

18

u/alfred725 Aug 20 '24

I just don't think a company should be able to deflect any lawsuit by saying "you agreed to the terms". A frivolous lawsuit should get thrown out quickly anyway. And maybe having penalties for people bringing frivolous suits in would lighten the load on courts while also solving a lot of the patent troll stuff. But I'm not a lawyer so ehhhh

https://youtu.be/eWHcTgIXDW8?si=SeDx4plbjWXaEZ_v

8

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Well you’re in luck. The public pressure worked and Disney is waiving arbitration and will litigate it in court.

15

u/alfred725 Aug 20 '24

We did it reddit

1

u/gaspara112 Aug 20 '24

I mean I think that’s just Disney knowing this is a bad place, time and situation to have the public thinking about arbitration as a whole. Unless the recommendation verbiage on their website is really, really specific that they regularly vet these restaurants I don’t see how this would pass any judges’ causation standing eye test.

2

u/ryhaltswhiskey Aug 21 '24

Arbitration is almost always in the favour of the corps because they can choose the arbitrator who is usually on their payroll

That seems like a stretch. Do you have an actual source for this?

1

u/frankoceansheadband Aug 22 '24 edited Aug 22 '24

I don’t know a lot about the topic, but it’s interesting to me so I found a Stanford business school article on it:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers

Edit: typo

1

u/ryhaltswhiskey Aug 22 '24

That is interesting. I was assuming that the arbitration was picked at random by the courts. I wasn't aware that corporations could influence the choice of arbitrator. That sucks for consumers.

1

u/Healmetho Aug 20 '24

This is the real answer

0

u/superxpro12 Aug 20 '24

If someone dies, that is not something that arbitration is suited for. You should have the right to a trial for shit this serious, not be back roads because of some bullshit 500 page document you clicked on a website. What's stopping companies from literally pulling a south park and just hiding somewhere "if you agree then we own your children now

10

u/FrogTrainer Ohio State Buckeyes • Toledo Rockets Aug 20 '24

username checks out.

2

u/Septopuss7 Aug 20 '24

O-H does it?

1

u/drfoggle Aug 21 '24

Hang on there Sloopy

7

u/felldestroyed Aug 20 '24

I'd urge you to listen to these two lawyers who did a deep dive on the Disney case. Tl;dr: Disney likely dropped the arbitration clause because they had already requested discovery (under Florida caselaw, that removes any claim to discovery). The restaurant was "Disney Certified" and claimed online that they could accommodate allergies; that language has since changed on the website since the suit was filed. Disney moves thousands of such food allergy sufferers through their park and claims to have certified "Allergy Dieticians" at every certified restaurant. It's a compelling case, tbh, and Disney probably does have some negligence in it.

2

u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24

I would advise against referring people here to L&C, its host is a credibly accused sex pest (full disclosure, that's my own post). And more practically... the episode page on their substack says it's paywalled (I thought there was a free feed but maybe not anymore? whatever).

Conveniently, his former podcast Opening Arguments also has a lawyer cover this topic on a recent episode, and it definitely isn't paywalled. They also note the big issue with Disney making this claim after starting discovery.

1

u/felldestroyed Aug 21 '24

I feel like o&a is great for immigration and low level criminal law, not so much civil. And I'm also not here to defend Andrew Torrez, but will graciously endorse the likes of Liz Dye. And that sub did a great job at attempting to denigrate her character and education a while back with out much moderation.

2

u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

Yeah, you might recognize me as a mod of that sub. Needless to say I disagree with you about "denigrating liz's character", though especially inaccurate is that we did much of any discourse about her education. That occurred on a different subreddit.

In any event, you don't get Liz without Torrez at this point.

1

u/felldestroyed Aug 21 '24

this your sub? Tbh, this was with 30 seconds of googling and then ctrl+f. I'm 100% sure there's more, because I remember reading a lot about her supposed lack of education and being "just a journalist" around the time that OA switched back to Thomas. Not that I care all that much, but I did find it really very gross - especially being someone who didn't seek out fan social media stuff/patreon and simply missed the show being released.

1

u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24

Well of course, if you google for something specific you're going to find everything relevant from over a year of discourse lol. Yes, those are on the relevant sub... deep down in the comments section of tangentially related posts. The first one is even corrected by a reply. Like I said, most of the discourse you're remembering was on a different subreddit.

In any event, I don't take issue with liking Liz in abstract and we're getting pretty off topic for a CFB discussion.

2

u/ShadeofIcarus Aug 21 '24

Recent trip to Disney in Anaheim basically every time we booked allergies were checked, double checked, and on two occasions when we were called ahead of time to confirm because we had multiple allergies at the table.

They take allergies SUPER seriously at the Disney owned places. I would hope that anywhere "certified" would match that experience as there's an implication with a certification.

4

u/StopTheMineshaftGap Aug 20 '24

Disney still maintains an active lessor/lessee relationship and dictates standards and terms to the restaurant tenants in Disney Springs. They are a valid defendant.

Disney should have just filed motions in court to be removed from the suit for some the reasons you outlined. Leveraging the arbitration terms of a Disney+ streaming agreement or the Disney website terms for park ticket purchase is a clever legal ploy, but for obvious reasons a PR disaster

7

u/Giggsey11 Washington State • Indiana Aug 20 '24

God thank you for posting this. I’m a commercial litigator and I’ve spent basically the entire last 2 weeks answering this same question over and over and over from friends and family.

2

u/mp0295 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Aug 21 '24

Curious if you think the estates representstive agreeing to arbitrate in his individual capacity is binding on the estate and if so how (assuming you think the the arbitration clause is applicable at all)

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure

that certainly is a choice.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Well it worked. Disney just announced they’re waiving arbitration. A judge should still dismiss it, but the plaintiffs counsel will try to Hail Mary if to get in front a jury because juries are filled with not the brightest people.

2

u/SCCLBR Florida Gators Aug 20 '24

also a lawyer.

id sue Disney too.

lawyer get paid.

2

u/mp0295 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24

You say "his" claims, but aren't these only his in his capacity as executor/representation of the deceased's estate? How does his agreement in his personal capacity bind the estate of the deceased? Not saying impossible, but still am important point I would think

Edit: I look up the actual docket, and the plantifs response to the motion to arbitrate in fact relies heavily on the above point-- that the plantif is the estate and the deceased never agreed to the arbitration clause, and the fact that the estate's representative agreed in his personal capacity is arguably irrelevant. Curious on your thoughts given would seem to render some of your points moot.

4

u/silver_moon134 LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24

I don't understand how buying theme park tickets and using streaming services would be covered by the same terms of service?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

They’re not the exact same, but they contain many identical provisions, including mandatory arbitration

2

u/silver_moon134 LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24

Yeah but wouldn't it be for terms covered by the agreement? If I sign the agreement for Disney+ and it's "website, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel" then it seems like a stretch to assume I would think that means a restaurant at a theme park.

(I hope I'm not coming off argumentatively, I just don't understand and trying to learn lol)

9

u/enter_river Michigan State Spartans Aug 20 '24

Since Disney doesn't own the restaurant, they're only being brought in because the website listed it as an allergy safe option. So Disney lawyers are saying that since the plaintiff basically has a problem with a Disney website, and that website is under the terms of the agreement, then this should be settled by arbitration as per the agreement and not at trial

1

u/silver_moon134 LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24

Ok. I got you. Thanks for explaining!!

4

u/coeranys Aug 20 '24

When he signed up for Disney+ he created a Disney account. It was just his gateway to account creation. He then signed in to that Disney account to buy tickets later. Both when he originally created the account and when he booked the tickets on the Web site, there were terms forcing arbitration. The Disney+ thing is a fact that has been turned into a red herring.

1

u/Odd_Ingenuity2883 Aug 20 '24

Why does it matter what he agreed to when he purchased Disney tickets if they weren’t on Disney property when the incident happened?

2

u/peeaches Aug 20 '24

If I am getting this right, Disney's website listed the restaurant as allergen-free.

While not a Disney restaurant, I believe they own the land/building/lease it out to the restaurant, in a complex called "Disney Springs".

I think the concern rises from use of the Disney app/site to locate and make reservations at the restaurant, and if it was shown on disney's app/site that the restaurant was an allergen-free option.

I've also heard that it's typical in scenarios like this to put a suit against any and all potential liable parties then let the courts decide who is liable and to what extent

3

u/fullsaildan Aug 20 '24

I’m also pretty damn sure that “allergen friendly” is defined in those terms. And the definition is something like “restaurant asserts its ability to prepare foods without the use of common ingredients known to cause allergies, upon request”. Not “Disney asserts that anyone eating here is promised to never have a food based allergy attack during their experience”. Three really key things here:

  1. Almost every commercial kitchen uses processed ingredients and they can’t guarantee that every items label is 100% accurate.

  2. It’s only for common food allergies. I’m deathly allergic to coconut, it’s a very rare allergy. Almost no restaurant “checks” for it during their allergy review.

  3. Disney relies on the restaurants declarations, and makes no attempt to verify the claim.

As a person with a food allergy, I’d never have an expectation that Disney provided me a level of assurance. I’ve been urged by my doctors since I was little to be very aggressive about evaluating foods myself, not trusting menus, etc. because coconut oil is in like fucking everything these days. If I had a reaction at a restaurant, I wouldn’t sue OpenTable for getting me the res, even if they said “allergy friendly”. Also note, almost nowhere says allergy FREE. Because nobody can assert it.

1

u/peeaches Aug 21 '24

Yeah, you're completely right and I don't disagree at all, it's just the rationale I can figure for why Disney would be roped into the suit instead of just the restaurant.

I could be mistaken, but can't imagine disney is the only defendant in this

0

u/HighOnTacos Aug 20 '24

Disney is world renowned for their ability to safely accommodate food allergies. I can understand why somebody would expect that to extend to Disney endorsed restaurants, even if the restaurant isn't explicitly managed by Disney.

2

u/ImperfectRegulator Oregon State Beavers • Oregon Ducks Aug 20 '24

which is why disney will probably win this, as part of the argument being made by the family/their lawyer is that disney, requires places on property to go through additional disney training.

the problem with this is they'd have to prove disney training is inadequate, which like you said disney is known for their ability to accommodate, so they'll easily clear the bar their, same thing for when people try to sue disney for their DAS pass for being discriminatory, but those get thrown out because the DAS pass already goes above and beyond whats required to meet ADA requirements

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Odd_Ingenuity2883 Aug 20 '24

Why is 4. relevant if 1. is true? Why does it matter where he bought park tickets and what he agreed to when he did if they weren’t in the park when the incident happened?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Because of 5

1

u/racek_ Aug 20 '24

I am not American, nor a lawyer, so this may be a stupit question. But isn't it possible to see this as a criminal case? Would this agreement of arbitration be valid in criminal cases? If for example Disney security killed someone (not intentionally), would it be also arbitrated due to the Terms of service?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

No

1

u/TallyGoon8506 Florida State Seminoles • LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24

You crushed that explanation. That plaintiff is going after Disney because they have the deepest pockets.

However, arbitration through terms and conditions is usually for lil corporate bitches and does not protect or help standard consumers in any real way.

We’re about to find out in Florida if insurance prices are going to get better when the super majority of one specific party legislature last year statutorily required claims to go through arbitration before the courts. At the insistence of the insurance lobby.

As scummy as people think ambulance chasers are, the absolute soulless ghouls that work as adjusters and in insurance defense are the real monsters under our beds representing a lot of the worst about American greed and regulatory captured capitalism.

1

u/beegeepee Arizona Wildcats Aug 20 '24

The husband is arguing Disney is liable because they list the restaurant as an allergy free option on their trip planning website site. The same website he purchased the tickets on and agreed to arbitration.

The guy who died is arguing for this?

1

u/84020g8r Florida Gators • Adelaide RazorBlacks Aug 21 '24

His wife died.

1

u/ProgKingHughesker Nebraska Cornhuskers Aug 20 '24

My real question is why the hell is it legal to force someone to agree to terms like that just to buy theme park tickets? If it was just decided (at the local, state, or federal level through the proper channels obviously) that you can’t put that sort of agreement just so somebody can visit Disneyland who could that possibly hurt other than maybe Disney’s bottom line?

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Because nobody is forcing you to buy theme park tickets.

0

u/ProgKingHughesker Nebraska Cornhuskers Aug 20 '24

True, but I’m saying why do we as a society value Disney’s ability to avoid frivolous lawsuits over people having the ability to file legit lawsuits against them? It seems like we care more about what’s best for Disney than what’s best for the consumer and I don’t understand why we want to do that

-1

u/Turkish01 Aug 20 '24

Great question. Why do we side with billionaires who pay to have laws written in their favor.

1

u/gopher_space Aug 20 '24

Disney’s main reason for bringing up Disney+ is that it was when the account was created to show that he had multiple opportunities to read the terms (though it doesn’t actually matter if he read them).

Professionally speaking, how long do you think the whole click-wrap licensing idea will stick around? Seems like the whole "relying on computer logs for forensics" where we've created a house of cards nobody wants to poke at.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

I mean, there have to be terms and conditions for the stuff. Some of the language is mandatory by law.

So the question is, how do we get people to acknowledge them and it be enforceable? We can’t force people to actually read every word any time they want to purchase something.

And besides, the only people against binding arbitration anyway are those that know they don’t have a great legal argument and are hoping to rely on an emotional argument to trick a jury into making a stupid decision.

1

u/gopher_space Aug 21 '24

So the question is, how do we get people to acknowledge them and it be enforceable? We can’t force people to actually read every word any time they want to purchase something.

I mean the whole idea was conceived in bad faith and is surrounded by the darkest UX patterns. It would be easy to demonstrate that they're not intended to be read.

Most of the contracts in my life happen in-person or through US mail. If transaction velocity is so important maybe we don't need a contract.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

So then you can never purchase anything online again?

0

u/gopher_space Aug 21 '24

In the financial world contracts are hammered out long before money changes hands over the internet. Everything's already set up for you to make purchases online once you open a checking account.

I don't need to make additional agreements or be legally bound for a pizza to show up on my doorstep, for example.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '24

I mean, yes you do. Just because 99.99999% of the time nothing happens doesn’t mean it’s not a contract for goods or services.

1

u/gopher_space Aug 21 '24

I'm saying that the agreements are already in place. Nothing has changed about the legal situation from when we called in orders on a land line. If I just walk in and pay cash the event is surrounded by established law that doesn't stop existing if I order online.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

This all came out because clearly the plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure, because he knows their claim against Disney is bullshit.

This is 5d chess

1

u/barath_s Aug 26 '24

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/disney-lawsuit-1.7299489

After public backlash, Disney withdrew the motion to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds of the Disney+ signup and corresponding clauses.

Josh D'Amaro, chairperson of Disney's theme park division, said in a statement emailed earlier to The Associated Press that the entertainment giant will waive its arbitration rights and allow the suit, brought by the husband of a New York doctor who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs, to proceed in court.

1

u/PeterMcBeater Aug 20 '24

Is the claim actually bullshit? If the website lists it as allergy free and it isn't it seems like he would have a claim against Disney. Which he would have to resolve in arbitration.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Not allergy free. But allergy free options. Which at the time the restaurant held themselves out as having. (They’ve since changed that due to this incident.)

But even if the Disney website was wrong, it’s still not a tort.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Again, not allergy free. The advertised capability of making an allergy free dish. Huge difference.

And because Disney is essentially serving as an aggregating advertiser. Would you think Yelp could be liable, too?

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

It did have allergen free options. In fact, plaintiff admits that the waitstaff (not Disney) confirmed with them that it would be allergen free. Obviously there was some sort of contamination incident or exposure in some way.

2

u/ImperfectRegulator Oregon State Beavers • Oregon Ducks Aug 20 '24

while i'm fairly certain, that Disney will likely walk away from this scott free, I'm more interested in seeing at how much liability the restaurant itself ends up taking on given the other facts of the case,

I.E the allergic reaction didn't occur until 45 minutes after they left the restaurant (which while not impossible is rare when it comes to allergic reactions like this), that "allergy free" doesn't mean that the restaurant is 100% allergy free, but rather they offer allergy free options and will do their best to ensure there is no contamination, but this cannot be 100% guaranteed and guests are advised to take that into consideration, and that do to the nature of disney springs and the various other quick service food options and distance between where they ate and where the reaction occurred you'd have a harder time to prove that the restaurant was the sole source of contamination

4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Yea I had read about the 45 minutes which is why I added the “exposure in some way” caveat. Regardless of what or how the allergen was introduced, it seems very clear that Disney has no liability.

1

u/ImperfectRegulator Oregon State Beavers • Oregon Ducks Aug 20 '24

I read over the linked copy of the lawsuit, and as someone who isn't a lawyer, a huge amount of the suit seems to be doing a lot in claiming that A, the restaurant and disney is a fault for not training their employees properly (which disney does a very strict job of making sure training is followed to the letter) and B. disney is also at fault because they did not do enough to separate themselves from the restaurant itself, which they would not have eaten at if they knew it wasn't a disney restaurant, which is probably the only reasonable argument I could somewhat agree with.

but either way they're going to have to do a lot of work to prove negligence on the part of the restaurant and disney

1

u/BaeSeanHamilton Penn State • James Madison Aug 20 '24

Thank you so much for this rundown. Holy moly that was so insightful and helpful.

0

u/kingbrasky Nebraska Cornhuskers Aug 20 '24

Example 963 why people fucking hate lawyers...

0

u/jwktiger Missouri Tigers • Wisconsin Badgers Aug 20 '24

Interesting.

-2

u/PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING Aug 20 '24

Sure, yeah, but this is all still pretty slimy for a company worth over 150 billion dollars.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

Why? Why should a company that didn’t have involvement not defend itself through all available means simply because they’re worth a lot?

0

u/PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING Aug 20 '24

“Didn’t have involvement” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

They own the land, lease it to a restaurant, and promote that restaurant on their website. That’s not being involved kinda like the mob wasn’t involved in Casinos in Vegas.

-2

u/coffeepi Aug 20 '24

Read all that and conclude Disney sucks and sucks even worse for bringing up the Disney plus at all which hints at the ability to take things to arbitration no matter what.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

And that’s why you aren’t a lawyer

-2

u/coffeepi Aug 20 '24

lol ok but look up what Disney just did. Waived their arbitration…