![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good at being bad: Death by Disney
Aug. 25th, 2024 10:14 pmGather 'round, kids. I have a story to share.
So a woman died on land owned by Disney. How? She went to eat at a restaurant on the premises that served her food she was highly allergic to.
Disney had claimed on its site that either all restaurants on the Disney premises or all the Disney restaurants had allergy-free food options. The woman even asked the staff at the restaurant if the food was for sure allergy-free, and they assured her it was. It wasn't. The restaurant the woman ate at was not owned or operated by Disney, but it was within a Disney resort, so the Disney website was misleading at best and downright lying at worst. For me, it doesn't matter much which one it is, as I think Disney should still hold some responsibility for the restaurants it has at its resorts, even if they don't personally operate them, and they definitely knew people would assume it to be safe by how the website worded things. The grieving widower of the woman seemed to feel the same way, so he wanted to sue both the restaurant and the Disney company.
But then Disney pulled out an insanely wild card. Their lawyers requested to the judges to dismiss the lawsuit. Why?
The man had signed up for a free trial to Disney+ and had also later used that account to buy tickets to a Disney park. Little did he know that signing up for a free month of Disney+ had dire consequences.
In the terms and conditions of a Disney+ membership, even a free trial, you agree that you can never sue the Disney company. Any part of it. Disney argued that this therefore fell within the forced arbitration clause the man had signed upon making his Disney+ account.
Now, arbitration is much like taking on a lawsuit in court, but the most important thing for Disney is probably that it's less public than a court lawsuit. Let's be realistic, they aren't bothered by having to pay to make someone happy enough to shut up, but they don't want the bad press.
And guess what? Bad press they got. This story was so bizarre that it went viral. Disney then decided to waiver the arbitration clause in this case because "at Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations". No, I'm not making that up. What a joke.
So yeah. Someone died at Disney, but Disney was prepared to sweep it under the rug by making all Disney+-subscribers sell their right to sue them in the fineprint of the contract to their streaming platform. It's so evil and thought-through that you almost have to support it for it's sheer commitment to wickedness. I mean, if they wouldn't eventually have failed at this hard by having their inhumane practices go viral.
Ah, so close Disney. Maybe next death.
So a woman died on land owned by Disney. How? She went to eat at a restaurant on the premises that served her food she was highly allergic to.
Disney had claimed on its site that either all restaurants on the Disney premises or all the Disney restaurants had allergy-free food options. The woman even asked the staff at the restaurant if the food was for sure allergy-free, and they assured her it was. It wasn't. The restaurant the woman ate at was not owned or operated by Disney, but it was within a Disney resort, so the Disney website was misleading at best and downright lying at worst. For me, it doesn't matter much which one it is, as I think Disney should still hold some responsibility for the restaurants it has at its resorts, even if they don't personally operate them, and they definitely knew people would assume it to be safe by how the website worded things. The grieving widower of the woman seemed to feel the same way, so he wanted to sue both the restaurant and the Disney company.
But then Disney pulled out an insanely wild card. Their lawyers requested to the judges to dismiss the lawsuit. Why?
The man had signed up for a free trial to Disney+ and had also later used that account to buy tickets to a Disney park. Little did he know that signing up for a free month of Disney+ had dire consequences.
In the terms and conditions of a Disney+ membership, even a free trial, you agree that you can never sue the Disney company. Any part of it. Disney argued that this therefore fell within the forced arbitration clause the man had signed upon making his Disney+ account.
Now, arbitration is much like taking on a lawsuit in court, but the most important thing for Disney is probably that it's less public than a court lawsuit. Let's be realistic, they aren't bothered by having to pay to make someone happy enough to shut up, but they don't want the bad press.
And guess what? Bad press they got. This story was so bizarre that it went viral. Disney then decided to waiver the arbitration clause in this case because "at Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations". No, I'm not making that up. What a joke.
So yeah. Someone died at Disney, but Disney was prepared to sweep it under the rug by making all Disney+-subscribers sell their right to sue them in the fineprint of the contract to their streaming platform. It's so evil and thought-through that you almost have to support it for it's sheer commitment to wickedness. I mean, if they wouldn't eventually have failed at this hard by having their inhumane practices go viral.
Ah, so close Disney. Maybe next death.
