Are you a Disney+ subscriber? 🍔 Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month at bit.ly/4dr7xlc ⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
In canada, all CIBC bank customers can get one month free disney+... (right now, august 2024) is this because they want to make more people binded by their terms of service? Do they wanna scam any canadian cibc customer who signs this honey pot???
My dest defense of Donald Come Legal Eagle 😅😅😂. I learn election Court cases Trump won. And he was found guilty on 34 felonies because the Jury didn't have to be unanimous
Yes and I subscribed to Disney plus afterwards this case doesn’t change my decision I was already going to do it anyway and I am not allergic to any real food
No, they don't. 1. They knew the risk going out to eat 2. Disney does not own nor operate the restaurant. There's no reason for him to sue Disney, so Disney needs to defend itself. 3. The guy is suing the wrong company
@@FutureMartian97 They can defend themselves in the courts, not with fine print that violates fundamental rights. If they aren't liable then the court is the methodology for determining that.
I got a $30,000 settlement for a restaurant allergy incident (that sent me to the ER). It was nightmare finding representation, once a lawyer/paralegal hears one lawyer doesn’t want your case, ALL lawyers don’t want your case. The lawyer I had, who dropped the case, gave me my case file and I had to shop attorneys, which was degrading and exhausting. I found an attorney that was interested, and, according to them, a settlement was reached after a handful of phone calls. Our legal system sucks.
I ran into similar circumstances when I wanted a settlement from the hotel for the bed bugs they gave me. I didn’t get anywhere until I got a lawyer in the same state as the hotel. It paid off though and I got my extermination and medical costs (I’ve never been so itchy in my whole life!) covered plus some money for my trouble.
On a related note, let this also serve as a reminder to people that the EpiPen is not a cure/fix for a severe allergic reaction. It drastically improves your odds of survival, but it isn't always enough. Even with prompt care after administration this woman didn't survive. Always seek immediate attention EVEN if you've administered the pen.
And make sure to self-administer your 2nd pen ~15 mins after your first one too! Gives EMT crews extra time to get you to a hospital, where the doctors can have better odds at saving your life
It's so important to carry at least 2. Epi can wear off after 15 minutes, ambulances can take longer than that. What probably happened is she administered it and it wore off before someone could get to her. People with extreme allergies also often carry quick dissolve benadryl to take with the epi, or some people inject benadryl themselves.
Until you get deeper into the case and find out Disney had very little to do with it. The only link to Disney is a website with allergen info. They do not run the restaurant, they only leased the ground it stands on. Ofcourse, the optics still don't look great when all the public sees is a handful of carefully selected keywords...
Yes, because it has been heavily misinterpreted in the press. This man would’ve likely gotten more money and sooner if he had done arbitration. But regardless, it is not & was never that Disney was saying they shouldn’t be paying a settlement. It was keeping the back & forth out of the press & courts on a scale of Depp & Heard.
@@Nenernener123 That is not an misinterpretation. That is exactly how it was. According to Disney you can not sue them for killing their wife. They unilaterally decided to allow the husband to sue in this case because of bad pr. "This man would’ve likely gotten more money and sooner if he had done arbitration" This is not relevant at all to whether or not he was allowed to sue.
@@PappaTom-ub3ht you're not listening to legal eagle. he specifically mentions that disney did not directly cause her death. and mentions for this case, the argument is that the arbitration clause only covers the website that states all eateries there can accommodate special dietary restrictions. try to properly listen to what legal eagle is teaching us. there's a lot of good knowledge you're missing out on.
Arbitration is heavily biased because the arbitrators want work. If they regularly rule against the corporation, then they will be blackballed and out of work. Disney isn't going to pay arbitrators that don't favor them on a regular basis. This is especially true in employment, which is why California has banned it in employment contracts.
Yep, the arbitrator is chosen by the corporation which is a pretty big problem with getting a fair outcome. On the other hand it's legal to bribe judges now in America, so the corporations can get whatever they want either way.
Yea and this is by design. This is not a bug it''s a feature. It is the entire goal of arbitration for big companies. They do not want to make the legal battle easyer on the plaintiff. No they want the legal system to be biased for they benifit. And when you consider that the american legal system is already pretty much in favour of big coperate entities that really tells you something about how coperations view the rest of the world.
That's not really true. The arbitrators are usually choosen in some relatively fair fashion from a pool. That's why corps are often happy to arbitrate against each other. The problem with arbitration isn't that the arbitrator is biased -- it's that you have to pay the arbitrator and this lets the corp run up the cost beyond what the plantiff can afford (you might get a lawyer on contingency but not the arbitrator). Also you don't get a jury which tends to be more plantiff friendly and other mechanisms like class action salts aren't allowed.
Forced arbitration clauses in contract should be made illegal plain and simple. They have no reason to exist other than to force people into not suing you
Thank you for covering this and explaining details of the lawsuit. Dr. T was my doctor for almost 6 years. She helped diagnose and get help for my husband and myself with our chronic illnesses. She was one of the few great doctors who would listen to her patients without ego or dismissals. She truly cared, and the world is a dimmer place without her. I am disgusted by the victim blaming I've seen on other videos. People don't choose their allergies or illnesses, and they deserve to enjoy the world. Her death was avoidable, and it is unacceptable that it occurred. Hopefully, this lawsuit ensures that this will never happen again. I am praying for her family. She is dearly missed.
My husband has a number of chronic illnesses and celiac disease on top of it all, so we're often super limited in where he can eat; when we find somewhere that says they can accommodate him, we absolutely try it out, and I'm sure that's all this couple wanted to do. It isn't her or her husband's fault that the server insisted the food was safe; they did their due diligence by asking over and over if the server understood, if the chef understood, if the unflagged items were safe, etc. What were they supposed to do, carry a lab around with them to test the food themselves? They trusted that the professionals in food safety knew how to do their jobs.
@@wmdkitty I'm not trying to blame the staff for being negligent, only defend the victims for doing all they could on their end to be safe. Two of the four items ordered were missing the "allergen-free" flags (or, that's what Devin reported, at least), which may have meant that someone missed the memo about the allergy somewhere in the line. I truly believe it was a horrible accident, and that no one just decided to ignore an allergy request.
@@wmdkittyhonestly though, this is what RR needs to prove in court, because according to plaintiff account, they did not do their due diligence in assuring the safety and compliance of the food for the plaintiff. In this case, it’s sad all around. And mistakes happen. It’s unfortunate that her allergy was so severe, and that the restaurant compliance seems to have allegedly lapsed that day. Again of course that is yet to be proven. The court case will settle the details either way.
Legality =/= ethics. Listening to how this case wasnt actually considered “draconian” or “reasonably unfair” by judicial standards is just disgusting. How could anyone look at this and be like “yeah thats fine.” its not fine! this isnt normal! Companies should not be able to make you waive all of your legal protections agaisnt them. WTF is wrong with those people.
You misunderstand why people are pissed off at Disney. It's because they hate click-through user agreements and they're essentially hiding the right to sue Disney if you use the park. Why read a long contract when all you want is to watch a movie? That's a completely low risk purchase and activity. How would you like to find out a year from now that you lost the right to sue your landlord because they hid some BS in the terms and service to their website they make you register at if you require maintenance? We can't have companies doing this. It's ridiculous.
I'm not a lawyer, but based on previous experience of UK law, a judge is permitted to rule that a clause is unreasonable. I can't enforce a clause that lets me take your house when you booked into my hotel.
FR. Imagine if every time you went to the store they presented you with a 50 or 200 page contract you had to sign before you could purchase literally anything anywhere and somewhere in there it says that because you bought a sausage from them you waive your legal rights if they send someone to blow up your house. The state of random TOS's for online services is completely ridiculous and any court that enforces them is frankly discredited in my eyes. They are not signed with informed consent (and EVERYONE, including disney, knows this) and their terms are usually unconscionable especially when trying to be applied to situations so far removed from the original area of the agreement. Even if people did read the contract I'm sure most people would interpret the clauses as only applying to legal disputes regarding their movie purchase or website subscription.
Arbitration would be a lot less ominous if it weren't so dirty from end to end. Disney trying to claim blanket arbitration powers is just the tip. If a company like Disney gets to pick the arbitration company or otherwise put selective pressure on the market, then arbitration companies are heavily pressured to obey Disney's wishes (unlike a judge, who has strong legal enforcement of their independence). Arbitration companies don't operate by the same rules that were designed to protect the public from abuses. If this stuff was cleaned up with firm regulation and layers of separation, arbitration would have far less bad vibes, but that'll never happen. Arbitration is 100% the corporations' tool, and it has to stay that way or they'll just abandon it.
I certainly wouldnt be viewing arbritration so negatively if it werent *forced*, and covering such broad sweeping strokes. I want my right to choose to settle privately in arbritration or in the court. the other thing I find issue with, is that because its private, there's no way to set precedence
@@TheSilverInfinity "broad sweeping strokes" Funny how companies complain about legislation being too broad, but it's perfectly okay to make their own TOS broad and vague.
@@Zileas01 Then you are just fair when it is company vs company and highly unfair when it is company vs individual, best of both worlds and highly desirable for companies.
It is worth noting that depending on the jurisdiction judges can be elected, and therefor reliant on campaign donations (although for far longer terms than for most politicians). Still probably mostly more independent than an arbitrator, maybe.
Isn't it so that Mr Picollo isn't, legally speaking, sueing at all, but rather representing his wife's estate, who is actually suing? Because that'd make their initial defense even more stupid, as she never signed up
Exactly. He's acting as the executor of her estate if I recall correctly. I understand that, at least according to current law and how our system currently works, that it's not totally out of nowhere that Disney is saying the click-wrap agreement can force arbitration for Mr. Picollo himself. But he's not suing as himself. It would make more sense to say his wife is the one suing. It's her estate. Also even if it's legal I still absolutely don't like the forced arbitration claim Disney has made. Legal ≠ moral.
That is in fact one of his lawyers' arguments about how the arbitration clause should not apply. The lawsuit is not even by her, but by her estate, which did not exist until she died and thus could not have entered into any arbitration agreement.
What's really gross is that 'Except in cases involving ownership or use of intellectual properties.' So, they get to take you to arbitration if they get someone killed, but if you review a disney movie and use some of the footage, they'll subject you to a long and lengthy court case, rather than an arbitrator who could rule it as fair use in an afternoon.
10:20 "and now you should be beginning to piece together why Disney's argument wasn't so crazy after all". No! Both the idea that a EULA you "signed" for a free trial applies to a totally different transaction years later and the idea that any EULA can apply to a wrongful death case in any context is absolutely crazy.
Tbf in this case the wrongful death claim wouldn’t fall onto Disney, they only advertised what the restaurant was claiming. So if anything they got screwed over by the restaurant
@@FaticusDolphinius It would fall on both. Disney is very big on claiming that all associated restaurants accommodate food allergies. Any restaurant operating on Disney property is more than just a tenant. They are very integrated into the Disney offerings. Disney could certainly go after the owner of the restaurant for screwing up, but that is between them and the owner. The person injured by the restaurant has every right to sue both.
Leaving emotion out of this and looking at the facts as presented I feel like Disney had a fair argument for arbitration. They are bringing Disney into the case based on what they read on the website, where they bough tickets, the arbitration agreement was originally agreed when he signed up for Disney+ but had he not done that then it would have been agreed to when he bought the tickets, as they say it was reaffirmed at that point. Thus since they are bringing Disney into the suit based on the website, they have to arbitrate based on the agreement when using said website. I am not claiming Disney has no responsibility in this case, just that they have the right to arbitrate, which as stated in the video is just an alternate means to a resolution, not an outright denial of liability.
another issue concerning arbitration is that "if I can choose the venue and the rules - I can win 100% of the time." Companies typically choose the arbitrator, stacking the odds.
@@ronaldking1054 X CEO said that when that they filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of TX against GARM that a specific judge (Reed O'Connor) would get the case.
You don't have to agree to their arbitrator, if parties can't agree, a judge will assign an arbitrator. Unless you agreed to one by name or something in the agreement, I've never actually seen that before in any contract.
"Forced Arbitration" is a fancy way of saying the law isn't there to protect you from shady business practices. The law was built in favor of corporations and they'll do anything to keep it that way.
It's disingenuous and harmful to reduce a complex situation to what you just said. "The law" is a web of myriad decisions which have indeed very often been established to protect large corporations above all else. But not all law is so. We should take a look at the sources of that corruption. I'll take an American perspective from this point forth... One great place to start, as it is a very clear way to delineate the most corrupt politicians who should immediately be considered hostile to the well-being of the American public. There was a decision called Citizens United which determined that a corporation is effectively a person, and entitled to free speech. And by free speech, they meant the right to contribute money to politicians. This opened the floodgates for corporate bribery in our government, and has resulted in absurd spending and lack of representation for the people, in favor of representation of corporate interests. There was an attempt to overturn Citizens United, as many recognize how absurdly wrong it is to allow this unchecked flow of money to corrupt politicians. But it was defeated by the very corrupt politicians that benefit most from corporate policy purchases. Look up the voting records on overturning Citizens United. Look at which politicians voted to overturn it, and which politicians voted to protect their corporate bribery pipeline. Then you should have a good understanding of one of the cornerstones of corrupt law protecting business interests over people. Then expand on it. Look into other decisions and other policies. Look into which politicians support good honest concepts like Net Neutrality, and which politicians want your ISP to be able to charge you full price for your internet connection, and then cut off or limit access to some third-party sites or services so they can charge a premium rate for you to use your already-paid-for connection to access that site. Many laws are helpful. Many are designed to protect the public and the innocent. But many are simply there to protect big business from consequences of their actions. If you look into it, you'll notice a trend among politicians and their political alignment being indicative of them siding with corporate interests over the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. Over-simplification leads to ignorance and inaction. Look at it for what it is. Make educated decisions at the voting booth.
@@HaydenLau. Only cheaper for the corporation but much more expensive for the consumer because arbitration favorites corporations and consumers must "sue" individually. Remember, the arbitrator is chosen by the corporation and if they don't decide in favor of the company choosing them, they don't get business anymore. This is why they usually decide in favor of the corporation even in ridiculous cases where the consumer is obviously in the right.
Thank the GOP for this. They are the only side preventing change. "The FAIR Act" which tried to end this BS was opposed by 203 Republicans and only 3 Republicans supported it. On the other hand all Democrats with the exception of Henry Cuellar (Texas).
The problem with binding arbitration is that arbitrators have no reason or incentive to apply the law fairly, impartially, and justly. Instead, they have every possible reason and incentive to dismiss as many cases as they can as swiftly as they can in order to earn the favor of their corporate masters, who themseelves have absolutely no reason or incentive to treat people fairly. No one can, will, or does hold arbitrators to account for draconian and fundamentally unjust applications of 'The Law', and corporations are all too pleased to be given this magnificent way to avoid ever having to deal with liability or the fallout of their malignance and predatory behavior. A woman died, and all Disney cares about is squirelling out of the blame for poisoning her - which they got to do, for free, because of arbitration, up until the Court of Public Opinion made it untenable. Is it any wonder people hate arbitration so much?
It's suspected that Disney dropped forced arbitration as a defense because they don't want that clause to be challenged in court. This is just them weaseling out of a likely unfavorable precedent for them and other companies/services that include arbitration clauses in their ToU.
I was thinking it was because i'm never going to Disneyland now. and 150 million other subscribers might think the same. That the cross over with fans is gonna be huge.
Governments will swing the lawsuit hammer real quick and then back down if it looks like the citizen will get off free for the same reason. It's bad practice for regulators who want to maintain powers of interpretation i.e. the power to make up the rules.
The DirectTV verdict is insane. I can sign an abritration agreement with Disney, who could then buy any other company, and then be forced into an agreement I never made with that newly purchased company. How do companies have more rights than people??
No expiration date and unlimited unnamed past, present, and future services is just ridiculous on its face. At the very least, any agreement like that needs an expiration date and the specific services listed. That sort of agreement should not be lawful.
@@Nyundaawell that might have been the case here, if they hadn't reactivated the account to buy the park tickets. Not to say that makes it okay though
@@Nyundaaimho the only type of contract that should be potentially unlimited after the reason for the contract expires should be pure NDAs. Anything else should either have a specific legal limit or a general legal limit that covers everything not being already covered otherwise. Greetings from Germany.
It's not clear but I'm sure the clause only applies when you buy a service or product from Disney and possibly only to sales made online. Ironically, the death is linked to the purchase of Disney World tickets rather than to the actual food since Disney don't own the restaurant. So although the story sounds crazy, as a Disney+ subscriber you should still be able to sue Disney without arbitration, just not for a faulty service. If you stop being a customer the contract ends, which isn't entirely unreasonable. Also, lots of contracts have clauses to defend themselves against accidents and some level of negligence, so just agreeing to arbitration wouldn't be so bad if not for the imbalance of power and lack of transparency.
Forced arbitration agreements should be made illegal as far as I am concerned. Sure, they might save money for a company and may even sometimes benefit the person in question who is seeking help. But the idea that you can sign away your rights to fairly using our actual justice system, instead using third parties that aren't members of our government, is actually insane. No company or individual should be allowed to compel you to sign away your rights in this way.
It sounds to me like Disney wants it both ways: They want their name to have deep meaning, and therefore be worth charging money for in order to be affiliated with their brand and reputation AND They want the fact that their name and brand is attached to a project to be completely irrelevant if things go wrong. I feel that you have to pick one of the two. You can't lure people in by promising them "Disney quality food" and then latter telling them "Disney had nothing to do with it." If you aren't carrying any responsibility, you shouldn't be able to charge to put your name on it.
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 No, it'd be perfectly _edible,_ it's just the pinnacle of blandness. The menu is just gruel and unfiltered room-temperature tap water.
@@nvelsen1975 I did watch the video, and I am fully aware of the fact that Disney is the landlord. That doesn't change the fact that it is in a Disney area, supported by their marketing that many people go to because they assume that Disney would make sure that Disney areas are safe and operating at a certain standard. Or are you trying to tell me with a straight face, that you think those businesses are paying perfectly normal Florida property rates to put their stores there?
If Disney didn't want to be sued, they should've just said that they didn't own the restaurant. Now people are probably not going to be as eager to sign up for their content in fear of something like this happening again. This is like something a Disney Villain would do.
Really annoyed with all these lawyers who willfully avoid talking about the power imbalance implicit in Forced Arbitration, where the company is both who gets to pick the arbitrator and is the one paying the arbitrator. Forced Arbitration like this is biased by definition. There is no way an arbiter to be unbiased considering the company is a repeat customer, and finding in their favor or not is going to influence whether they get fired for arbitration again. Personally, I think arbitration is by definition unethical, as it is always biased.
I think this should make for a good video Devin (@LegalEagle) is there a misconception of arbitration or a fact? I for one think that the authority of an arbitrator as a unbiased 3rd party is murky at best. Im very skeptical of arbitrators. And it is a failure of the system that these matters take too long to resolve. I think DIsney should just settle this out of court, they will pay a lot more in councel than the damages they will pay.
While arbitration is expensive this is quite unfounded unless you have more details than have been revealed. It is common practice in arbitration that both parties must agree on the Arbiter. There are in fact many that are anti-giant conglomerate, at which point it becomes kind of like jury selection where each side tries to 'stack the deck'. Pro-business arbiters are usually the norm because the average person gets strongarmed through the process. As in all matters like this, you should find a good lawyer to handle it for you. I don't the claims of arbitration being biased due to pay being believable, as anyone who has tried to go through any type of reputable agency knows the ex-judges/lawyers that make up that pool have more requests than they are willing to even take. I would not be surprised if arbiters appear to have a 'pro-business' slant because an arbiter is much more knowledgeable about the nuances of law than a jury, so appeals to things like emotions are simply not as effective. Whether you think that is 'fair' or not is a matter of debate.
Remember the part where he said, "Disney hires good lawyers"? Waiving arbitration avoids having their fine print being exposed to the microscope of legal precedent - they let the wheels of justice roll right along, and get to go back & harden the fine print to make it more palatable in a court of law, in case this comes up again in the future.
Disney saying they're not liable because it wasn't actually their restaurant is perfectly valid. Disney saying he can't sue because of Disney+ is preposterous and they deserve the backlash and more for having the gall to even suggest such a thing. Whose bright idea was it to run with _that_ as their plan A?
I'm not sure "plan a" is a fair description. The lawyers might have thought that argument had a 20% chance of success and just thrown it out there on the theory that 20% is better than nothing and failing to assert your rights early enough in the legal process ends up meaning you lose those rights BUT in retrospect Disney needed to think ahead about what a judge's opinion/public opinion would say about their argument.
No Disney is saying if you use the website as the basis of a lawsuit, you have to abide by the TOS of the website. In the plaintiffs case, he agreed to the TOS at least twice.
@@Moleoflands TOS is a contractual agreement, the only thing that happens when you breach the contract is that they don't have to hold up their end of the deal. What they _can_ do with this is if he doesn't allow it to go into arbitration like it says in the TOS, they can stop providing him access to Disney+ and that's it. ToS isn't a catch all agreement either, it's possible that they won't have legitimate reasoning to refuse service just because of this case. What's crazy is the lawyers putting this as a legal defense here is they're either trying to bluff him into submission, or they are legitimately threatening him from losing access to his Disney+ and expecting him to care. You can't just put anything you want into a ToS and say "follow it or go to jail" that's not how these work. Breaking ToS simply means they don't have to keep providing you service. What IS important is that they have to actually enforce the ToS otherwise it loses it's authority, which is a weird catch 22 for them, either they enforce the ToS and find out that it doesn't hold up when the judge crumples it up and they have to rewrite the ToS, or they don't enforce the ToS and are required to change it to remove the effected clause. Which is why a "breach of ToS" getting taken to court can sometimes pay ridiculous amounts in settlements before they actually end up in court, because them actually testing the validity of their ToS is not only expensive but could actually get rid of leverage they have over the consumer. The long and the short is that a judge WILL throw this ToS line out and Disney will be forced to change it, and the precedent could force ALL forced arbitration lines to be removed from all ToS depending on the situation. So what will happen is a really generous settlement will be taken, or Disney is about to FAAFO.
it should be illegal to require people to agree to forced arbitration through terms of use, it's extremely well-known that people don't read those. They're designed to be mind-numbing to read so that you won't get to the fine print
They should write that stuff for normal people, not lawyers Wouldn't that get rid of not only forced arbitration, but any other legalese bs they try to get away with?
@@takethesquid If it was written for normal people then it would be a few hundred pages (to explain everything in detail) and again nobody would read them.
@@takethesquid That's the issue right there, you need your own lawyer to make sense out of it. To the average person, it's word salad, so the company is winning through obfuscation.
@@takethesquid If it was written for normal people it either A: wouldn’t be legally enforceable because the language wouldn’t be compatible with legalese; Or B: would be extremely long, as another commenter said, since it would need to explain everything in detail, and we’re back on square one.
In my country, there is a very strong push to use arbitration rather than go to court. Even judges are encouraging its use. This movement first began in the 1990s and it is steadily gaining traction.
ELUAs should not be enforceable TBH. There is no humanly reasonable way anyone can actually read that much content at all, and therefore should be thrown out
@reviewchan9806 I mean it is less than 5 minutes to read your average EULA. There are protections in place to prevent totally bananas things from being put into EULAs, like for instance you cannot put "You owe us $1,000,000 for agreeing to this" in a EULA.
That court ruling that subjects a person to a clause in a contract with a company that wasn't the same company the person signed up with is absolutely ridiculous. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. How can you foresee which companies will acquire which other companies?
13 minutes later, that isn't even the worst example!!! The Estate of a woman who "allegedly" did not agree to the Terms and Conditions, is being denied justice of having her wrongful death held in a public trial and be on public record, by way of interacting with a restaurant not owned by Disney but merely a tenant on Disney's property. So, disputes over liability when the business and the property owner are not one and the same are no longer matters of public justice? The estate of a wife must only sue the husband for wrongful death? We are already beyond 11 on the dial of "sounds bad", and that is not even the worst example!?
When faced with a customer w/that level of fear, I pulled her into the kitchen, got a new pan, knife & board & cooked her dinner apart. she approved everything before it went on the cutting board or in the pan. The staff carried everyone else's dinner & she carried her own plate. & She finally felt free to not worry about what was on her plate & could relax & enjoy her meal. She watched her dinner every step of the way, start to finish. (Even washing her own salad.) That, as Disney found out... Is Life & Death. You don't play around with that. NO GUESSING.
I think if I had that level of allergies, I wouldn't be eating out at all. Or at least not at restaurants where there's a chance that these ingredients are ever inside the kitchen.
Yeah, the Disney arbitration aspect is (legitimately) getting all the headlines, but I _really_ want to know what happened in that restaurant that could possibly have led to this result, as described. To have been repeatedly informed that the person you're serving food to has _severe_ allergies, explicitly been asked about whether the food was safe, apparently gone back to the kitchen to confirm that the food could be made safe, and then telling her (multiple times) that all of her concerns were understood and the food she was eating was definitely safe (even explicitly reassuring her that it was fine after some of the food was not labelled as such), and then not have that _not actually be the case_ (with apparently *two* different types of allergens, no less), that goes way, way beyond a "mistake". The civil suit against the restaurant seems fully reasonable and legitimate, but IMHO this incident probably should cross over into the realm of criminal charges for reckless endangerment, or maybe even actual manslaughter, as well. Somebody there was either deliberately poisoning her, or being so incredibly, outrageously, mind-bogglingly incompetent that it basically amounts to the same thing.
Imagine if a rollercoaster at universal studios collapsed and took out your entire family and they were like "well I see you bought Shrek 2 the video game on Gameboy advance in 2004, didn't you read the EULA? You agreed not to sue us federally over a rollercoaster crushing your family if you wanted to start a save file". That's the level of logic we're on
@lukes you're so right. Disney operates a cruise line and hypothetically they could use their arbitration clause against you if you were involved in an accident that killed your family member on one of their cruise ships. Or think about a company like tui or virgin, they both operate cruise ships and airplanes as well as some other services. With companies consolidating as much as they have via mergers and acquisitions, these forced arbitration clauses and get more and more power.
you assume that universal would use a universal property as legal umbrella. Disney buys up everything, so your agreement with them extends fare beyoned what you expect. Like they permission to operate a nuclear plant.
How nice of Disney to wave it’s “right” to arbitration. Is it not insane that they have that “right” because someone clicked ‘okay’ on a incomprehensible form when trying to watch TV? Still feels like they should not have this right.
"The supreme court wants to keep disputes out of the courts because they are swamped with cases." Hmm, remind me: who was it that recently ruled that all disputes about ambiguities in government agency competences had to go to the courts by striking down Chevron Deferrence?
I think its absolutely ludicrous that you can sign up for a service YEARS ago, and may not even be actively a member OF that service anymore, and yet the arbitration limitation can still be binding. No statute of limitation, or cut off based on continuing or discontinued contracting? That is insane.
@@LeSethX Its all about loopholes. Our laws are set up that you can't retroactively apply them, and they go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of what the law was trying to convey, in most cases. What this means, is that if someone finds a loophole, they can use it. There might be legislation later to close that hole, but until it is, people are perfectly able to use it. And since the law usually goes by the letter (and the fact that elected officials usually have outside interests that align with whoever has the most money and power for when they retire and need money and power) then I can completely see someone doing just that, and the law basically saying its perfectly okay, especially with expensive law firms that are just looking to win cases for the client that is shelling out millions a year in retainer fees, not to mention individual case costs. Our government and the corporations that "endorse" (i.e. bribe) them is a close loop that regular people don't get a fair shake in, based on power and money changing hands, a good ole boy club of handshake deals, back pats, and "I owe you one" and the common citizen is the one that ends up getting screwed by it.
It wouldn't have mattered if Disney backed down or not- they had no legal recompense in the first place. a) As of the date he signed the park ticket agreement; that agreement 1) had no arbitration agreement in the first place. 2) according to it's own wording it super-ceded any & all other agreements, which includes the Disney+ subscription. (Credit: Louis Rossmann via/ The Wayback Machine). 3) His Wife never agreed to ANY terms via Disney, only he did. 4) He isn't suing Disney- her Estate (by proxy of him) is suing for wrongful death, as such no Forced Arbitration agreement is valid, because SHE never signed one.
So bottom line is that a restaurant shouldn’t say the are allergy friendly if their kitchen is not explicitly set up for that. Also, even with such a set-up, they can’t guarantee all food will be free of allergens. The problem is that they made repeated guarantees on something that truly can’t ever be guaranteed.
"Allergy friendly" is for marketing, and usually there's a disclaimer on the menu explaining the limitations. IHOP has "gluten friendly" pancakes on their menu, and all that means is that they don't use gluten containing flour in the batter; it doesn't guarantee that it won't be cross contaminated by being cooked and prepared on the same surfaces as gluten containing items on the menu. Sadly, it's this type of miscommunication that causes incidents like this. The kitchen may be "allergen friendly", but not "allergen free", and an inadequately trained server, or underinformed diner, might not understand the difference.
@@raeoverhere923maybe companies should stop making deliberately confusing marketing surrounding medical issues that requires special training for a waiter
@@raeoverhere923 I worked for a Chinese restaurant at one time. We were literally trained to be as hostile to customers who mention allergies as possible so that they would be discouraged from coming back. So we could avoid such headaches. Glad I'm not there anymore.
@@hashbrown777 I absolutely agree. It's a marketing technique that can be actively harmful to consumers, but they get away with it because the "fine print" means the consumer was "informed". It's gross.
Not the point, but as the part owner of a small food business that caters to allergen-sensitive patrons, if I ran a place that served processed food from many sources I would've told them they could not be served because it was too risky given the severity of their symptoms or the potential for contamination. That's why we exist as a business, to protect very allergic clients by making everything from scratch in a dedicated kitchen. You're losing a customer either way, and I prefer the way where they leave breathing.
Yeah, if they must “check with the chef”, then don’t eat there. The restaurant should have errored on the side of caution and so should the customers. It was a completely avoidable tragedy. Poor woman 😢
@OnlineKenji it's common practice for people with dietary restrictions to check with the chef. If you require a dedicated allergen free environment, that's one thing, I agree. If you don't put peanuts directly in my food I'll be just fine. But I would like to make sure the person making my food is aware of the fact that peanuts could potentially kill me, so they know to make sure not to do that. And if they can't be sure there's not peanuts, they need to tell me that, and then I won't eat that food. It's really not that difficult.
@@sarasmr4278 I have a friend whose skin turns red if she walks into a bakery - that’s how strong her egg and dairy allergy is. When we go out, if there is even an ounce of doubt, we walk. These details show so many red flags that it scares me hearing how many wrong decisions were made by everyone involved, that led to this tragedy. The restaurant deserves to be sued for promising something they had no right to, but I also wish the couple had exercised more caution when it seemed like trouble.
@@OnlineKenjiUnless you’re suggesting that they should have carried a portable allergen-testing laboratory with them, I don’t see what more they could have done. From the details of their complaint, they repeatedly stressed their dietary needs, and they received multiple assurances from staff that those needs had been met.
The truly tragic thing about this whole story is she did everything thing right! Referencing that new disclaimer on the restaurant's menu: She alerted the server that she had a severe food allergy (multiple times) She asked to confirm if it was possible for certain dishes to be made free of cross contamination (they said it was) She called out the missing allergen free flags, but was told the food was still safe to eat. She was even carrying an EpiPen. This woman bent over backwards to keep herself safe and her only mistake was trust the server was telling her the truth! The failure on the part of the restaurant to properly train their staff on the importance of avoiding cross contact and knowing (not just guessing) all the ingredients in their menu is appalling. I am a former food service worker and someone with food sensitivities. Given the amount of care this woman out into alerting staff to her allergies, this SHOULD NOT have happened. If they knew couldn't accommodate her, they should have said so. In my opinion the negligence on the part of the server and or chef is criminal and both of them should be investigated for involuntary manslaughter, and that Restaurant should be sued out of business.😢 😡
I agree, but it's not the server's fault. All a server does is take care of serving food and seating tables. The kitchen and management are responsible for this incident. The server is just following what their kitchen/manager told them
It is time that something was done about Terms of Service. Nobody reads them - and rightly so, because no one has time to read them. It is unreasonable to expect that regular people would be reading and remembering pages and pages of legalese for every service they use. So therefore the power those Terms of Service should be able to have should be very limited. Sure, Disney+ ToS should be able to dictate how one acceptably uses Disney+, but no way it should expand outside of Disney+ and absolutely no way you should ever be able to include a forced arbitration agreement in ToS. It's time to clamp down on these types of practices.
Even if the plaintiff merely agreed to arbitration by "agreeing" to the Disney+ contract, the fact that the plaintiff could have been on the hook for paying a part of the arbitration fees (for the death of his wife) without the option to go to court is still potentially malicious. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney maintains this policy *because* they know that arbitration fees are expensive and could dissuade litigants from proceeding. Not trying to channel my inner marxist here or anything, but this still feels a little malicious. I don't think this is as clear-cut as arbitration being "beneficial for both parties". And yeah, I don't think an agreement to arbitration for a streaming service should apply to a physical location or service, unless MAYBE that location or service is directly related to the streaming service (server farm, stray electrical cable, etc.)
There's no way they should be able to force consumers to waive their legal rights in order to make a simple purchase. Whatever happened to consumer protection in your country?
If it was beneficial to both sides why would they need a forced arbitration clause anyways? If you go to a lawyer is the first thing he tells you "we should ask for arbitration because it would be better for you"? Yeah no Disney knows what it is doing and I find it disappointing how LegalEgale seems kind of dismissive of the ethical implications of a forced arbitration by a large company vs a single person by a catch-all agreement.
9:10 Wait, so Disney requires that any and every dispute with them be arbitrated... unless they want to sue you for IP infringement. Sounds fair and reasonable 😐
The initial case being made by Disney might have been that there was a typographical error on the website, and that the restaurant they visited did not advertise nor assure the guests of allergen free food. Such a case that the restaurant is not liable in the wrongful death, and that the patrons of the establishment are responsible for due diligence, raises the validity of a "typographical error" falling within the scope of the Terms and Conditions. However, if it is not an error on the website, then yes, the subsequent case is one that Disney requires every dispute to be arbitrated without full transparency and accountability in the public eye. Therein, Disney is also claiming that having it fall under the scope of "Terms and Conditions", that Disney is THE host, and is potentially more liable than the restaurant. When invokes a civic duty to boycott Disney and associated entities until their property follows Steamboat Willie into the public domain.
As a server, this is my #1 biggest fear. If someone comes in and asks for a gluten/dairy/nut free option, I always ask if there's an allergy so I can notify the kitchen. We have an allergen cheat sheet back there, but it's a bit complicated so I carry around a photo of it on my phone to go over with guests. I'm so paranoid about this that I'll usually double or triple check with the kitchen I always feel like I'm being so annoying for it. But there's always this lingering fear that despite my best efforts something will sneak past. All I can do as a server is do my research and communicate with the kitchen. I have to trust that the head chef will pass on the message, that the utensils will be switched out, etc. The idea that I could be responsible for someone losing their life like that is terrifying.
yeah, but the guest has the ultimate responsibility. regardless of anything they are the ones with the issue at hand and still choose to walk into a place knowing the risks. she didn’t carry an epipen for no reason-you can’t always trust others. i have an issue myself and every single time i walk into a place (restaurant, friends/family, etc.) i know what it could mean for me. the only way to know for sure if i’m safe, is for me to have full control from start to finish. the rest is risk, that regardless of any of the details-i choose. the price i pay, i’m aware of, and pay it solely.
What surprised me about this case is that Disney has access to the best of the best and not that you normally consult a PR firm as an attorney but... it kind points out how tone deaf a corporate lawyer can become when they're zoning in on attacking the plaintiff's argument, not realizing that the optics are terrible. Not to mention, that legally, I still find the argument a stretch because, like the plaintiff said, it almost invites the question of: If your argument is true, does this mean that EVERYONE that ever bought or signed up Disney+ or tickets, even children (like teens for example!) have agreed to give up a jury trial in the case of injury? It's such an extreme position! IF you happen to read this, I am curious to know why Disney simply didn't claim that they should not be part of the lawsuit, and that they're only the landlord. Is like they wanted their cake and to eat it too. They're a third party, but even if they count as an affiliate, you agreed to arbitration against any of these companies! That is way, way, way too broad.
The reason why they were included on the lawsuit is exactly why they had the argument for arbitration. They got brought into it because their website promised these restaurants could and would produce allergen free food as needed. But because the website is the link to disney, that means the terms of service for USING the website becomes valid. If the argument was "disney owes us money because it happened on land they owned" arbitration would have likely never been brought up and the case against them likely would have been dismissed due to a lack of connection to them sharing blame for the wrongful death. It would be like suing the state because a drunk driver ran you over on a public street. the state owns the road, therefore its their fault?
It's mind blowing how little the US laws protect consumers. In most European countries the state sues (and usually wins) in the case of a wrongful death caused by the negligence a company, e.g. food poisoning in a restaurant. No amount of fine print anywhere will absolve you, or give you the upper hand to force arbitration, if you caused death.
Rich guys in the US sold the idea that socialism, government regulations and legal protection for the working class was actually bad for them. And people are happily married to that idea, because they aspire to become part of the elite and abuse the workers some day.
disney didn't cause anyones death Raglan Road irish pub is not owned or operated by disney its just on a street that they own which makes the lawsuit against them rediculous
Consumers get a speedy trial and I'm guessing there haven't been enough new judges to match a rising population. It would be more fair if the person who has less power in the arbitration should be allowed to choose an arbiter, and I'd hope that the options for more consumer friendly arbiters would rise.
@@jamesfaucher4588 No one is against customers getting a speedy trial, but arbitration should be agreed to when the action is brought, and arbitration should be organized by the courts like it is in most countries. I am not against arbitration, just arbitration clauses that force consumers argue their cases infront of employees of the company they are suing. Either that or arbitration clauses should only be good for amounts upto $5,000 or something.
As an EU lawyer I am a astounded at the prevalence of arbitration clauses in te US. In my country private persons cannot agree to arbitration, precisely for the reasons you listed.
You know, the fact that the court system is so backlogged is an indication that we need _more_ judges and all the various staff and everything that helps keep the US court system moving. It's just proof that we're ignoring the actual problem - that we don't have enough judges and court staff to handle the number of cases they have to deal with. And how do we solve that? We hire more ppl and expand the offices until they can handle their case loads! Pushing as many cases as we can into private arbitration is an attempt to hide the problem (and privatize the court system at the same time) as well as pretend it's been addressed while not actually doing anything to fix the problem!
An argument that would have served as a delaying tactic to hold up the court and forced the plaintiff to basically weigh whether or not continuing the suit would even be financially worth it.
honestly I was hoping they argued this in court. Just so it would piss off a judge enough to look into what's actually written in there. I'm like 90% sure a lot of the clauses are straight up illegal
The idea that a click-wrap agreement on a streaming service precludes a suit for wrongful death offends common sense; the notion that Disney would seriously advance such an argument offends common decency.
Absolutely! The clip-wrap agreement covers matters pertaining only to the website. Once the customer enters the park, or an adjacent business being advertised by the park, the "Terms and Conditions" no longer apply. The subsequent interaction is outside the scope of the Terms and Conditions. The matter is no longer an error on the website. If the plaintiff loses to the restaurant, then Disney may have a case for Arbitration. However, until the restaurant wins in a court, Disney's liability, and therefore whether the matter is within the scope of arbitration, is not settled. If the plaintiff wins, then the matter falls outside the scope of Disney's arbitration and Disney has no case.
I disagree with the premise that the website and the disney+ subscription are closer in concept. One is a paid subscription service, the other is the restaurants website that had the menu which is pertinent to this case. Just because things are online, does not make them related - especially not in 2024. To try to link the disney+ TOS to their website's general use - something that does not have a TOS required to view it, is not a reach, it's just outright a disconnect. Had the plaintiff not signed up for disney plus, nor purchased the tickets to Epcot - their death would have still occurred and they still would have had the same disney website menu experience. They are wholly unrelated, and the TOS from disney+ should have no relevance here.
The big problem with arbitration is the massive conflict of interest right out of the gate, since one side (Disney) is the arbitrators customer paying for their services. The second problem is making arbitration outcomes too difficult to overturn. Here in Australia, we have arbitration, but none of the outcomes are binding. The courts just want to know that serious efforts were made to resolve the issues before going to court, and this is how it should be. It is in fact the court system that is sending people to arbitration, it is not contracted. In many situations the court will not hear your case until an arbitrator signs off on it that genuine efforts were made to arbitrate but no agreement could be reached.
One problem in this case is that the suit is brought on behalf of the woman who died. The husband is the one who agreed to the terms of the website. If the terms are enforceable against the wife also, that sets up for this situation: I find out that someone who I don't like is planning on suing Disney. Say that they're never used Disney services of any kind. Maybe a Mickey Mouse statue in front of a Disney Store in the mall fell on them, injuring then. I want to screw with them. I buy them a ticket to Walt Disney World and agree to the terms of the website, including the arbitration clause. I send them the ticket as a present and inform Disney I agreed to the website terms on their behalf. Explain why this wouldn't work
In the scenario you've proposed, it's provable that they didn't purchase the ticket. You went to the website, which means you paid online. That will be traceable. And not directly to them, as anyone seeing a purchase from Disney they didn't make on a bank / credit card statement would dispute the charge. Have you still caused them a headache? Yes, and they can take you to court civilly over it. Then there's also the criminal charges that might apply, depending on where you and they reside, and whether Disney might want to (perhaps without merit) attempt to pursue intent to defraud charges. And if you used their banking / other financial account info to make a purchase without their knowledge, that might find you running afoul of identity theft and wire fraud charges. Additionally: What is the applicable law regarding spousal agreements? To explain: some states say that if you are married when the debt is incurred, regardless of which party signed for it, both spouses are responsible. Is there such a law regarding agreements of other kinds, and would it apply? Which would be the prevailing law: the state where the (in this case) death occurred, or the state where the plaintiff resided at the time of the agreement, in the event those states have conflicting statutes?
Even entertaining the idea that if it was the husband it would be more legitimate is completely insane to me. This entire thing and the very concept of forced arbitration is completely insane. Forced arbitration has absolutely no reason to exist and it should be made void from all contracts that were ever signed and be made illegal to include.
I suspect the argument is that because he is the beneficiary of the estate so that it is a dispute between him and Disney. Or that he agreed to the terms on behalf of both spouses.
14:15 This check box is the problem. You have to check the box that you agree to their terms of service before continuing. You cannot proceed, there is no I have read them BUT disagree to them but wish to continue with my purchase. This check box where you have to agree to terms of service before continuing should be illegal then for all the reasons and examples given in this video.
Well they weren't really claiming that at first. Don't forget that nobody stopped him from suing the restaurant for damages. Only when he brought in Disney for no reason other than they have a lot of money, that's when they started doing this. Realistically, what were they supposed to do? Check all the meals made in a kitchen they don't operate, prepared by people they don't employ, served in a restaurant they don't own to customers that don't pay them? Disney owns the land the restaurant is build on, nothing more. I don't like Disney's business practices but no matter how you look at this, this is not their fault. So I can't really blame their lawers for going hard here.
I'm surprised this video doesn't mention how the plaintiff was arguing that the arbitration clause doesn't apply to them since it was the estate of the deceased who brought the suit, not the husband who agreed to the terms and conditions to watch Disney+ and use the Disney site to buy tickets to EPCOT.
This is simple, you cannot withhold a product or service and force the user that they cannot hold you accountable for any mistakes in that product or service if they use that product or service. To allow this would be to prevent anyone from being held accountable.
I just have to say, regardless of if Disney is responsible in some way or not. The fact that they try to use the Disney+ free trial as the reason to dismiss the suit says a LOT
@messybe It wasn't actually in Disneyland proper. This area is not a part of the ticketed access area, you can just go there any time without any tickets.
Disney's lawyers being too smart for their client's good. I don't know what is expected here but $50k seems like a small amount considering (though that's implied that the lawsuit could be much, much more once it gets underway and all factors are considered). I can see the argument that Disney isn't actually liable in this case. But given the optics their agents put them in - settle. Apologize. Then take it out of your law firm's hide.
Even if they are forced to arbitrate against Disney, they aren't exactly screwed, they just have to handle the matter in private court instead of public court
@@Slackowah yes, I’m sure the Fortune 500 company with pockets deeper than the Mariana Trench will be at a disadvantage against a regular guy whose wife was killed at Disney. You do realize Disney would be the one selecting the arbitrator?
@@esbenm6544 I'm just saying that they aren't exactly signing away their rights to sue Disney, just how they can do it, though it still may be unfair because as other commenters have pointed out, Disney is the one picking the arbiter and they have a bias towards the corporations typically because they need work, and if they rule against them they might get blacklisted for them. If those problems weren't present it'd be ok imo, but yeah that definitely changes things.
@@Slackow The Arbitrator (Arbitration's version of the judge) is chosen by Disney. If you don't realize how they'd be screwed from that alone, it means arbitrators are incentivized to rule in favor of Disney otherwise Disney is more likely not to hire them in future and they'll be more likely to be out of a job.
That's the thing though; you have to be a forking lawyer or some other professional to trace ownership. The name on the restaurant is probably not the name on their taxes, etc. And it was a very easy and lethal mistake; this should not exist.
@@jeffandjoannbauer9567This, that restaurant property could’ve been a rented to a McDonald’s and they wouldn’t have sued Disney, because obviously Disney is only being sued because they have money. It’s like saying Walmart is responsible for what happens in the McDonalds renting there space in store if you know what I’m getting at.
@@coolguyenglish4484 Still, it was Disney's land, and someone died. The least they could do is hand over the $50,000 which is comparatively SMALLER than a drop in their bucket. It is but a single molecule of hydrogen in their ocean.
@@gabriellehitchins9182 I get that, but it's not like how restaurants work is taught in school. You cant expect something to be common knowledge when it isnt taught commonly. The modern world is so complex that understanding every nuance is practically impossible. Especially since most people eat out in order to relax; not think about logistics.
@@gabriellehitchins9182 Would be more fair to word it as "may contain traces of Gluten" then, right? It definitely feels like saying "May contain Gluten" is to make it arbitrary about how much gluten they are referring to, in case their chef messes up and makes a full on gluten meal in something that is said to be gluten free.
@@Lewtable No, it would be more fair to say “Mostly Gluten Free” instead of “Gluten Free”. If you cannot guarantee your product is 100% gluten free, well then it isn’t really gluten free now is it? Imagine buying dish soap that says “Kills All Germs” and then it says “May not actually kill all germs” in subtext. Obviously that would be ridiculous. That is why soap always says “Kills 99% of Germs” because they cannot guarantee 100%
Most attorneys will still advise to sue the landlord as well due to insurance coverage just to ensure that there's someone to cover the damages if one of the defendants tries to skip town.
@@LinkDID Exactly. Litigation always includes the defendent with the most money as long as even a very tenuous connection can be made. There is little risk and maybe they'll offer a settlement to make it go away.
Nobody was angry because there was or wasn't a logical legal argument. People were angry because a billion dollar company was trying to squash a suit involving a death. This is less of a legal issue and more of a public relations issue pointing to how out of touch Disney is.
And not only this, they outsourced the legal work so they could point at the firm and say their fault…we at Disney have higher moral standards. And the law firm was very happy with the money Disney payed them to say it.
And he was only initially asking for like 50k to help with death expenses. Like they burn 50k. Just settle out of court. I’m sure they paid those lawyers more than that to come up with that bs argument
See, that's exactly the misunderstanding the video is talking about. They weren't trying to quash the suit at all, they were trying to move it from court to arbitration. Not the same thing.
Arbitration clauses may help clear the courts, but from what I’ve heard and read, arbitration is going to favor the entity being sued. Companies that realize they truly are liable can drag procedures out for months or even years. They count on victim fatigue. This system needs to be abolished and something else that is fair needs to be developed. Scientology has jumped on this bandwagon and it’s ugly. People have abused, trafficked, bankrupted by this organization claiming to be a religion (for tax purposes, mind you). Anyone with the mettle to sue Scientology - or simply challenge the bills the organization produces has to go through horrible procedures again, again, again….and again and may still not win. Its terrible. It just might be worth noting that Clearwater, FL is a major hub for the Church of Scientology. I wonder how much Disney has gleaned from them?
The reason it specifically favors the entity being sued is because those entities use the system more often. Obviously, how often are you going to sue anybody, right? Probably not much. Even if you willingly took stuff to arbitration every time and had no problem with it, you'd see that arbitrator maybe once in your life, twice if you were really litigious? Companies like Disney see them dozens or hundreds of times. Even if Disney went totally hands-off and let you choose the arbitrator with zero input from them, the odds are your choice is already beholden to Disney for future business and won't make any decision that is completely unfavorable to them.
Yeah it's pretty crazy how far into corruption America has fallen. And we didn't even really start from a good position either with the whole slavery thing... Smh Btw you said "Anyone either the metal" i think that was a typo, you probably meant "with the mettle"
Arbitration clauses are great in theory in terms of gaining faster access to justice and protecting privacy etc however in practice, you are right, they often prevent the wider public from finding out about egregious behaviour and also, ironically end up being way more expensive than litigation and do actually end up dragging out for years anyway.
One thing I’d like to point out is that Disney’s statement *oh so magnanimously* saying that they are “waiving their right to arbitration in this case” implies that they maintain the claim that the arbitration agreement is binding. Which means that if you have EVER used Disney+ they may still try to argue that you don’t have the right to sue them for anything, ever. Basically they abandoned it in this particular case in order to avoid putting the arbitration agreement in front of a judge and risking a judgement that it is generally invalid.
In the States you can sign away your rights and your life to arbitration. In Canada for example, you can agree to arbitration, but even then the ultimate remedy remains the courts. You cannot sign away your right to a court trial. The US protections are so weak in so many ways.
@@chench1llaIn Canada, gross negligence cannot be waived, generally speaking. The validity of a waiver also takes into account the scope, clarity of language, and a reasonable person's understanding of the waiver and its extent. For example, you could sue a gym and they could be held liable for injuries sustained from using equipment, even if you signed a waiver to not hold the gym responsible for any injury arising from using their equipment, if the gym failed to ensure their equipment was safe. An issue is whether or not it could be considered reasonable that anyone signing up for a Disney+ subscription/trial would know or accept that the terms included mandatory arbitration of incidents that may occur at a Disney park or property, at any given point in the future.
@@ironmaster6496 Hey Disney is a propaganda machine. Every single thing they do from the parks to the movies to the lunchboxes is designed to do only one thing. Have ppl link the company to a happy childhood and good vibes. So that when they are adults they can do the big spending.
Reminds me of Roblox. The original oof sound was used illegally by Roblox during early development and stayed throughout the games history. More than decade later the original person who made and sold the sfx learned of this, and was glad that it was appreciated by so many, but asked Roblox for like a few thousand dollars since it was used illegally. Roblox denied this with some stupid reason and refused to pay for years, until it became a bigger issue later on and the guy asked for more money. And of course Roblox just replaced the sound, not paying the person any money from what I’ve heard. Ah Roblox, Disney, and Google. Really love to screw over their customers and affiliates.
Notice that piracy and other disputes over intellectual property were excluded from the forced arbitration. Disney wants to be able to sue the pants off of people who infringe on their brands while forcing any complaints against Disney into arbitration.
Arbitrators are not judges, though some may have once been. Their business model survives by keeping the mega wealthy corporations safe from court rulings.
My mom was at a restaurant in Disneyland and told them she had a severe pepper allergy. The chef came out and was very reassuring, and told her he would make it special and separate. When they brought it out, she took a bite and it was full of pepper. The chef came running out because he noticed the server grabbed the wrong plate. Luckily she was okay, but she was very ill the rest of the day and evening.
The arbitration clause: "You and Disney DTC agree to arbitrate, as provided below, all disputes between you (...), that are not resolved informally, except disputes relating to the ownership or enforcement of intellectual property rights." Sounds like things that you are likely to sue Disney for go to arbitration while things Disney is likely to sue you for go to court. Neat.
Also, only Disney DTC is bound by the agreement. If you try to go after an entity owned by a different part of Disney you are bound to arbitration. If an entity owned by a different part of Disney tries to sue you you have to go to court.
It reminds me of OceanGate. It is not because there is a waiver preventing a lawsuit from events that the company cannot be sued from neglect leading to death.
Time 16:00 Regarding the (now) pending Court Case, the Defendant is seeing a minimum of $50 000 and pain and suffering. It seems that if everyone involved truly wants 'justice' then Disney, which "strives to put humanity above all other considerations"...(sorry I threw up a liitle)...could easily afford an initial $500K settlement, which is probably less than their lawyer fees to date. But I am a cynic.
A big problem with arbitration as I see it, is that the arbitrator cannot possibly be unbiased; They will have an inherent incentive to side with disney. Their livelyhood as an arbitration buisiness relies on getting *chosen* for big arbitration cases. Thats fine for situations where the parties are about equal in size, but for a case like this you have a small private estate on one side that you are unlikely to ever see again, and on the other you have a megacorporation that is likely to end up in arbitration dozens and dozens of times for decades to come. Disney doesnt even have to say anything for the arbitrator to understand that if he rules against them here, they are probably a lot less likely to choose his firm again next time.
a potential way around this is an arbitration registry, that all companies wanting arbitrations will pay into as a retainer. Then, for each case, the arbitrator will be chosen, and arbitrated on, but the company cannot retaliate against an unfavourable verdict by ceasing their business contract to arbitrate since they're paying into a registry, rather than directly to an individual arbitrator (or they can choose to _stop_ arbitrating altogether).
"Estate you are unlikely to see again" Now that's an understatement. The estate literally represents someone who isn't living & a little while after this case is fully resolved, the estate will most likely stop having any reason to exist.
@@NateROCKS112 Sure, but it's something that could be set up without needing a massive government to do it. A government who has a lot of other things they need to resolve. We want arbitration to be as fair as a court system. But, if it were, companies wouldn't bother with forced arbitration agreements with individuals. You wouldn't need them if they were equally favorable to the individual, but less expensive.
bro even if they have "terms of service" for the restaurant that you have to go to arbitration i would call BS, there is no reason whatsoever to require you waive your right to sue them for a wrongful death over eating in a restaurant? (stupid as fk if it applies to watching a TV show as well), if it was extreme sports like skiing i could understand ski resort asking you to sign it because its inherently dangerous but this? nah
@@batmang9014A person literally died. I think thats worth crying about Also, they requested the restaurant multiple times to make sure the wife should not get the food shes allergic to
@@batmang9014 Good thing people were careful enough to literally ask the server and chef about their food having the allergenes. It boogles my mind the twists people make to defend a small company like Disney.
Do you know if there were any consequences for the chef/server whose negligence killed her? I have friends with extreme allergies and that this could happen to them is infuriating
7:18 thats bs, the reason it's set like that is because US law is to help big business, not working class citizens, and arbitration keeps their unlawful activity wrongfully out of the public eye, gladly majorly backfiring in this situation
@@nuggetsyl yea i was surprised he seemed to have such a bias towards arbitration, i would think arbitration also helps put people like him out of a job assuming lawyers not AS relevant there (i should say i'm not a US citizen, so my thoughts are based on what i see from the outside without any brainwashed biases etc)
There's nothing wrong with arbitration. The problem is when the corporate uses their arbitrator instead of an independent one. If you see how arbitration between companies are handled you'd see how it's supposed to work.
This comes off as sooo wierd for a swede... 1. Disney didn't own the restaurant and the idea that they could guarantee what kind of food is served is strange. They did not only rely on the homepage but asked the restaurant on the spot about it and the restaurant lied to their face. It doesn't involve Disney at all. 2. The Disney+ account should have no bearing on the case, since a PS account is different from a physical visit in a resort. I agree that the family have agreed to arbitration IF it is connected to Disney+ or is some sort of TV-issue, like say their eardrums had been hurt by the sound from a show on Disney+. 3. Click-box agreements have questionable legality in the first place. Many of them are forced upon you even after you have bought a product, say a game in a store. Any kind of agreement after the deal have been agreed upon is of course not legal.
For 1. I believe Disney can be involved. The property is rented with heavy restrictions and is subject to inspections, and in turn benefits from the tacit Disney endorsement.
@@as_if6224 Disney vouched for the allergen-free abilities of their restaurant. That's legally binding. Only in the USA does one have to argue in court "defrauding is wrong"
@@doublepinger I haven't seen anything indicating Disney vouched for any particular restaurant being allergen-free. The only statements I've seen indicate they do their best to accommodate those with food allergies.
We don't know yet whether the restaurant lied about anything. They may have made the food without any ingredients explicitly containing the allergens using clean utensils, clean surfaces and clean pots. Thus the restaurant staff could have been honestly convinced the food was safe. Presumably more details will come out in court.
I know that arbitration is really "normal" for lawyers, but it is one of those things that will never be ok to many. It's like replacing state police with corporate police and vest them effectively with the same power, because the state police is too swamped, and we should be ever the pragmatists and go along with it.
The fact they even THOUGHT this argument might be acceptable is a problem. Using these types of terms and conditions to unilaterally screw over anybody who uses a website is commonplace. A food-related wrongful death lawsuit is not the time to bring up a Disney+ TOS, and "waiving our right" is also a bad look. Having baseline business ethics is important, and it's clear from this situation that many people agree Disney was wrong to raise this argument. Now that we know they intend on using this argument, it should be codified into law that they cannot, in order to prevent such a thing from happening in the future. We shouldn't let them write arbitrary TOS language, or this will simply happen again.
I absolutely hate the idea that if you ever at any time agreed to anything that has an arbitration agreement that subsequently ANY law suit against that mega corporation for any reason is automatically arbitrated. Like oh, your kid in 2nd grader had an account with a Time Warner affiliated mandatory classroom education system and you as a parent signed them up for the account? Sorry the arbitration clause affects that now grown up person whose own child died on a harry potter ride that wasn't inspected and subsequently malfunctioned. "Sorry kiddo, your grandparent shoulda read the fine print."
The problem for Disney isn't that they defended themselves in this case, it's that they tried to bring in a force arbitration clause from what a reasonable person would expect to be a separate service. The fact that they were likely to win on the merits in courts just makes the optics that much worse for Disney as they were played a card they didn't even needto play. Really makes them look unethical.
For one, they wouldn't have won. Two, contracts are not unbreakable. Now, even if it's a seperate service, you still may be binded under the umbrella company. They Always cover the whole company, subsidiaries and affiliates...
The "separate service" is their website where they give information about some restaurants ... and sell tickets for their parks (which the couple used). It's not as remote as you think.
@@RogerAckroidHow is an informative section on a website similar to a streaming service aside from also being online? It's like comparing a business card and a book because they're both printed.
Waiver is just as much a right. anything else is forced. Arbitration is simply an alternative venue. There are issues and concerns with arbitration but keep in mind that if the plaintiffs win arbitration Disney would have no appeal rights.
@@IMBlakeley That is incorrect. We have the same thing in the EU. Broadly speaking, the rules are probably a bit more favored towards individuals over corporations, but you can definitely agree to arbitration via some stupid terms of service on a website that nobody reads.
@@adrianwebster6923if we were talking about informed waiver, then sure there might be an argument that waiving your rights is a right. But in this case most people are uninformed. Even if one reads the EULA, how many people will understand what arbitration is? How many people will understand the gravitas of what they just signed? Being deceived to unknowingly waive your rights or without complete understanding should not be legal.
@@animatedamons470 - This one is particularly foul. And I wonder why they're botting on Devin's videos. I mean, this isn't about child abuse, which are the videos they usually bot on... Them and their 3000 clones.
So what you're telling me is if I never pay for a streaming service and instead sail the high seas, I'm less punished than if I did "the right thing"? Interesting how that works.
Just an FYI - I have a food allergy, and whenever I eat at Disneyland's own restaurants, I always talk to a chef to confirm how they are making sure to avoid cross-contamination. Don't talk to your server - politely request to talk to the chef, who is the one who actually controls your food; they'll always talk to you and explain the process and what foods are suitable. But if you want to be 100% sure, always pack your own food and bring it with you. Don't risk your life or health when things can go wrong beyond a single employee's ability to control that they may not know about. Btw, my only experience with arbitration worked out in my (and my insurance company's) favor. Arbitration is not always a bad thing, although forcing it sucks.
Well, but why would Disney or any other company want Arbitration instead of a Public Trial so vehemently? Leaving aside the "courts are swamped with work" argument, wouldn't that just make it easy for them to abuse, coerce and keep sealed any malpractice? After seeing the video, Disney's response and practices seem as draconian as they first appeared.
The big thing that jumps out to me is precedent. When a court is making a ruling on a case it looks to previous ruling for similar issues in order to make its decision. Arbitration agreements aren't court cases and their results are sealed so no precedent. Also a public trial could challenge the legal validity of their rules, like I bet if this went to court most sane judges would force them to change the wordings on their ToS to make it less open for interpretation. And finally yes forcing arbitration puts the ball squarely in their court because THEY get to pick the arbitrator. Think of it as window shopping for a judge that has a history of making rulings you like.
Stop supporting them. Just ignore them, stop seeing the movies, stop talking about them, don't buy official merchandise or go to the parks. Only way to stop them is to stop giving them money.
Not Disney needs to be stopped from doing this. The USA need to be stopped from doing this. Shit like that is straight up illegal basically everywhere else. A clause like that should just not be legally binding. Especially not if it stays active basically indefinitely.
They could have just fought on the fact disney didn't manage the place, instead MASSIVE PR DAMAGE. Lawyers thought they were being clever and didn't think about their clients reputation
They advertised the restaurant on their website as being alergen free and the restaurant is on disney property. That makes it an agent-principal relationship. A gents and principals can get sued for the mistakes of the other.
@@bespokepenguin103 no they didnt... they advertised that restaurants can accommodate allergic people and to discuss with the personnel. No restaurant on earth is allergen free.
This is all irrelevant they could have just used those ground and we can argue that until the cows come home, whatever, the fact is Disney lawyers brought some small print in an online subscription as an argument, that got the head lines that did PR damage and they could have just ignored it and fought it on the cases other merits.
Arbitration is really fun in the case of Scientology. Members sign a contract that requires them to go to arbitration... by Scientologists. Who know very well that anyone who goes against Scientology (e.g. by suing it) becomes labeled as a "suppressive person", and any Scientology member who dares to do anything to help someone like that (e.g. ruling in favor of them) will be thrown out of the church themselves, which in turn means getting cut off from all friends, family and employers who are members or do business with Scientology.
Scenario A: Restaurant defends its case from the plaintiff, and is ruled not at fault. Disney's liability is reduced to "typographical" considerations, which may arguably fall under the "Terms and Conditions" arbitration clause. Scenario B: Restaurant loses its case against the plaintiff, and is summarily held at fault. Disney's website is deemed to not have "typographical" errors that fall under the arbitration clause, and instead is summarily liable as THE host. Scenario C: Disney wins that the matter falls entirely under arbitration and the restaurant's liability is reduced to a contract dispute with Disney. All further interactions with the company are then determined to fall within the terms of arbitration of an isolated EULA. Disney becomes Scientology.
Here in the UK, usually customers can ask for the "allergens book" that restaurants have, so that they can view whether their food is actually safe for them. If I had severe allergies, I wouldn't go by word of mouth. We take allergen training very seriously over here. Also shame on Disney, and shame on US pharma for their obscene pricing on epi pens.
There are a good amount of places that will list allergens, but the issue becomes if a supplier substitutes a product (not uncommon) that list can no longer be trusted. You still need a person trained on allergens to verify things are safe or not. Ironically, Disney has a reputation for being one of the better ones at this. I will say too, as someone who's been to Disney Springs, it's pretty clear the moment you get there that it isn't run by Disney, and I wouldn't have the same trust in their processes.
Are you a Disney+ subscriber? 🍔 Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF your first Factor box plus 20% off your next month at bit.ly/4dr7xlc ⚖ Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Wolves Finances is better then legal eagle
In canada, all CIBC bank customers can get one month free disney+... (right now, august 2024)
is this because they want to make more people binded by their terms of service?
Do they wanna scam any canadian cibc customer who signs this honey pot???
My dest defense of Donald Come Legal Eagle 😅😅😂. I learn election Court cases Trump won. And he was found guilty on 34 felonies because the Jury didn't have to be unanimous
Yes and I subscribed to Disney plus afterwards this case doesn’t change my decision I was already going to do it anyway and I am not allergic to any real food
@@osmosisjones4912I literally have no idea if you're making fun of idiots or being one.
Just a reminder that Congress failed to pass a law stopping these types of terms and conditions. This poor family deserves better.
Exactly cause Disney pays congress to give them the upper hand.
@@M.A.C.01 more like Corporate America pays congress, of course that includes Disney but you're naive if you think they're doingit singlehandedly.
They didn't fail. They did exactly as their paymasters demanded.
The family deserves better, everyone does.
No, they don't.
1. They knew the risk going out to eat
2. Disney does not own nor operate the restaurant. There's no reason for him to sue Disney, so Disney needs to defend itself.
3. The guy is suing the wrong company
@@FutureMartian97 They can defend themselves in the courts, not with fine print that violates fundamental rights. If they aren't liable then the court is the methodology for determining that.
I got a $30,000 settlement for a restaurant allergy incident (that sent me to the ER). It was nightmare finding representation, once a lawyer/paralegal hears one lawyer doesn’t want your case, ALL lawyers don’t want your case. The lawyer I had, who dropped the case, gave me my case file and I had to shop attorneys, which was degrading and exhausting. I found an attorney that was interested, and, according to them, a settlement was reached after a handful of phone calls.
Our legal system sucks.
I ran into similar circumstances when I wanted a settlement from the hotel for the bed bugs they gave me. I didn’t get anywhere until I got a lawyer in the same state as the hotel. It paid off though and I got my extermination and medical costs (I’ve never been so itchy in my whole life!) covered plus some money for my trouble.
Glad you got a settlement though. My circumstances were irritating but yours must have been terrifying!
@Joseph44141 are you having a stroke?
@@WhamBamBoozler its a bot
@@four-en-tee a bot having a stroke
On a related note, let this also serve as a reminder to people that the EpiPen is not a cure/fix for a severe allergic reaction. It drastically improves your odds of survival, but it isn't always enough. Even with prompt care after administration this woman didn't survive. Always seek immediate attention EVEN if you've administered the pen.
The EpiPen is a like a tourniquet: it helps keep you alive long enough to get proper help, it doesn't permanently solve the problem.
And make sure to self-administer your 2nd pen ~15 mins after your first one too!
Gives EMT crews extra time to get you to a hospital, where the doctors can have better odds at saving your life
Duh
It's so important to carry at least 2. Epi can wear off after 15 minutes, ambulances can take longer than that. What probably happened is she administered it and it wore off before someone could get to her. People with extreme allergies also often carry quick dissolve benadryl to take with the epi, or some people inject benadryl themselves.
you get two doses per box like narcan its their own fault for only bringing one
"At Disney we make sure suing us effectively and fairly is impossible. Even if your wife died" That's how anyone sees this.
Until you get deeper into the case and find out Disney had very little to do with it. The only link to Disney is a website with allergen info. They do not run the restaurant, they only leased the ground it stands on.
Ofcourse, the optics still don't look great when all the public sees is a handful of carefully selected keywords...
Bingo!
Yes, because it has been heavily misinterpreted in the press. This man would’ve likely gotten more money and sooner if he had done arbitration. But regardless, it is not & was never that Disney was saying they shouldn’t be paying a settlement. It was keeping the back & forth out of the press & courts on a scale of Depp & Heard.
@@Nenernener123 That is not an misinterpretation. That is exactly how it was. According to Disney you can not sue them for killing their wife.
They unilaterally decided to allow the husband to sue in this case because of bad pr.
"This man would’ve likely gotten more money and sooner if he had done arbitration" This is not relevant at all to whether or not he was allowed to sue.
@@PappaTom-ub3ht you're not listening to legal eagle. he specifically mentions that disney did not directly cause her death. and mentions for this case, the argument is that the arbitration clause only covers the website that states all eateries there can accommodate special dietary restrictions. try to properly listen to what legal eagle is teaching us. there's a lot of good knowledge you're missing out on.
Disney has become Ursula-by signing any agreement with them, they take away your voice, your ability to hold them accountable. Poor unfortunate souls!
Welcome to capitalism ...
Ariel violated the terms of the contract and had the person she owed murdered... This isn't a great example...
It hilarious how you think you’re being witty, but your actually just regurgitating disney ip like a robot,
@phartferd5738 Oh, please, making a bad joke about a movie isn't people a sheep or robot. And Poor Unfortunate Souls is great.
They didn't take away your right not to sign and instead tell 'm where they can stick it.
Arbitration is heavily biased because the arbitrators want work. If they regularly rule against the corporation, then they will be blackballed and out of work. Disney isn't going to pay arbitrators that don't favor them on a regular basis. This is especially true in employment, which is why California has banned it in employment contracts.
Yep, the arbitrator is chosen by the corporation which is a pretty big problem with getting a fair outcome. On the other hand it's legal to bribe judges now in America, so the corporations can get whatever they want either way.
Exactly! It's SO disingenuous to claim arbitration is BETTER for the plaintiff! Like WOOOW.
Yea and this is by design. This is not a bug it''s a feature. It is the entire goal of arbitration for big companies. They do not want to make the legal battle easyer on the plaintiff. No they want the legal system to be biased for they benifit. And when you consider that the american legal system is already pretty much in favour of big coperate entities that really tells you something about how coperations view the rest of the world.
That's not really true. The arbitrators are usually choosen in some relatively fair fashion from a pool. That's why corps are often happy to arbitrate against each other.
The problem with arbitration isn't that the arbitrator is biased -- it's that you have to pay the arbitrator and this lets the corp run up the cost beyond what the plantiff can afford (you might get a lawyer on contingency but not the arbitrator). Also you don't get a jury which tends to be more plantiff friendly and other mechanisms like class action salts aren't allowed.
Forced arbitration clauses in contract should be made illegal plain and simple. They have no reason to exist other than to force people into not suing you
Thank you for covering this and explaining details of the lawsuit.
Dr. T was my doctor for almost 6 years. She helped diagnose and get help for my husband and myself with our chronic illnesses. She was one of the few great doctors who would listen to her patients without ego or dismissals. She truly cared, and the world is a dimmer place without her.
I am disgusted by the victim blaming I've seen on other videos. People don't choose their allergies or illnesses, and they deserve to enjoy the world. Her death was avoidable, and it is unacceptable that it occurred. Hopefully, this lawsuit ensures that this will never happen again.
I am praying for her family. She is dearly missed.
My husband has a number of chronic illnesses and celiac disease on top of it all, so we're often super limited in where he can eat; when we find somewhere that says they can accommodate him, we absolutely try it out, and I'm sure that's all this couple wanted to do.
It isn't her or her husband's fault that the server insisted the food was safe; they did their due diligence by asking over and over if the server understood, if the chef understood, if the unflagged items were safe, etc. What were they supposed to do, carry a lab around with them to test the food themselves? They trusted that the professionals in food safety knew how to do their jobs.
@@raeoverhere923 And the kitchen did everything they could to ensure that the food was allergen free. Tragic accident.
People are actually victim blaming this case?
They gotta be as stupid as the lawyers.
@@wmdkitty I'm not trying to blame the staff for being negligent, only defend the victims for doing all they could on their end to be safe. Two of the four items ordered were missing the "allergen-free" flags (or, that's what Devin reported, at least), which may have meant that someone missed the memo about the allergy somewhere in the line. I truly believe it was a horrible accident, and that no one just decided to ignore an allergy request.
@@wmdkittyhonestly though, this is what RR needs to prove in court, because according to plaintiff account, they did not do their due diligence in assuring the safety and compliance of the food for the plaintiff.
In this case, it’s sad all around. And mistakes happen. It’s unfortunate that her allergy was so severe, and that the restaurant compliance seems to have allegedly lapsed that day. Again of course that is yet to be proven. The court case will settle the details either way.
Legality =/= ethics. Listening to how this case wasnt actually considered “draconian” or “reasonably unfair” by judicial standards is just disgusting. How could anyone look at this and be like “yeah thats fine.” its not fine! this isnt normal! Companies should not be able to make you waive all of your legal protections agaisnt them. WTF is wrong with those people.
There's no room for ethics in court, especially when you're representing a large corporation.
@@pafnutiytheartistIn the EU, burying unusual clauses in long, benign-looking consumer agreements can make them unenforceable.
You misunderstand why people are pissed off at Disney. It's because they hate click-through user agreements and they're essentially hiding the right to sue Disney if you use the park. Why read a long contract when all you want is to watch a movie? That's a completely low risk purchase and activity. How would you like to find out a year from now that you lost the right to sue your landlord because they hid some BS in the terms and service to their website they make you register at if you require maintenance? We can't have companies doing this. It's ridiculous.
I'm not a lawyer, but based on previous experience of UK law, a judge is permitted to rule that a clause is unreasonable. I can't enforce a clause that lets me take your house when you booked into my hotel.
yeah its basically "you can use the things we own but you cant complain when they dont work because it insults us and we dont make mistakes"
Under EU law, that would be a dark design practice / unfair commercial directive violation. It's mad insane this is legal in the US
now I‘m wondering if he reads all the agreements one has to make when signing up for a website or buying stuff online
FR. Imagine if every time you went to the store they presented you with a 50 or 200 page contract you had to sign before you could purchase literally anything anywhere and somewhere in there it says that because you bought a sausage from them you waive your legal rights if they send someone to blow up your house.
The state of random TOS's for online services is completely ridiculous and any court that enforces them is frankly discredited in my eyes. They are not signed with informed consent (and EVERYONE, including disney, knows this) and their terms are usually unconscionable especially when trying to be applied to situations so far removed from the original area of the agreement. Even if people did read the contract I'm sure most people would interpret the clauses as only applying to legal disputes regarding their movie purchase or website subscription.
Arbitration would be a lot less ominous if it weren't so dirty from end to end. Disney trying to claim blanket arbitration powers is just the tip. If a company like Disney gets to pick the arbitration company or otherwise put selective pressure on the market, then arbitration companies are heavily pressured to obey Disney's wishes (unlike a judge, who has strong legal enforcement of their independence). Arbitration companies don't operate by the same rules that were designed to protect the public from abuses. If this stuff was cleaned up with firm regulation and layers of separation, arbitration would have far less bad vibes, but that'll never happen. Arbitration is 100% the corporations' tool, and it has to stay that way or they'll just abandon it.
I certainly wouldnt be viewing arbritration so negatively if it werent *forced*, and covering such broad sweeping strokes. I want my right to choose to settle privately in arbritration or in the court. the other thing I find issue with, is that because its private, there's no way to set precedence
@@TheSilverInfinity "broad sweeping strokes" Funny how companies complain about legislation being too broad, but it's perfectly okay to make their own TOS broad and vague.
@@Zileas01 Then you are just fair when it is company vs company and highly unfair when it is company vs individual, best of both worlds and highly desirable for companies.
@@Zileas01Sounds like y'all would do a lot to keep those big companies. You're not helping your case.
It is worth noting that depending on the jurisdiction judges can be elected, and therefor reliant on campaign donations (although for far longer terms than for most politicians). Still probably mostly more independent than an arbitrator, maybe.
Isn't it so that Mr Picollo isn't, legally speaking, sueing at all, but rather representing his wife's estate, who is actually suing? Because that'd make their initial defense even more stupid, as she never signed up
Exactly. He's acting as the executor of her estate if I recall correctly. I understand that, at least according to current law and how our system currently works, that it's not totally out of nowhere that Disney is saying the click-wrap agreement can force arbitration for Mr. Picollo himself.
But he's not suing as himself. It would make more sense to say his wife is the one suing. It's her estate.
Also even if it's legal I still absolutely don't like the forced arbitration claim Disney has made. Legal ≠ moral.
@@samh2340 The information of the menu accommodating ''allergen free'' is from Disney's website which maybe includes the TOS?
Objection - The husband doesn't have a locus to the death and is not an interested party, he can't be the one suing.
@@lancemckenzie1074 A husband is absolutely an interested party in the life of his wife.
That is in fact one of his lawyers' arguments about how the arbitration clause should not apply. The lawsuit is not even by her, but by her estate, which did not exist until she died and thus could not have entered into any arbitration agreement.
What's really gross is that 'Except in cases involving ownership or use of intellectual properties.' So, they get to take you to arbitration if they get someone killed, but if you review a disney movie and use some of the footage, they'll subject you to a long and lengthy court case, rather than an arbitrator who could rule it as fair use in an afternoon.
I noticed that too. Everything in their favor
10:20 "and now you should be beginning to piece together why Disney's argument wasn't so crazy after all".
No! Both the idea that a EULA you "signed" for a free trial applies to a totally different transaction years later and the idea that any EULA can apply to a wrongful death case in any context is absolutely crazy.
Yeah, this was a real mixed bag of a video
this guy sold out years ago
Tbf in this case the wrongful death claim wouldn’t fall onto Disney, they only advertised what the restaurant was claiming. So if anything they got screwed over by the restaurant
@@FaticusDolphinius It would fall on both. Disney is very big on claiming that all associated restaurants accommodate food allergies. Any restaurant operating on Disney property is more than just a tenant. They are very integrated into the Disney offerings.
Disney could certainly go after the owner of the restaurant for screwing up, but that is between them and the owner. The person injured by the restaurant has every right to sue both.
Leaving emotion out of this and looking at the facts as presented I feel like Disney had a fair argument for arbitration. They are bringing Disney into the case based on what they read on the website, where they bough tickets, the arbitration agreement was originally agreed when he signed up for Disney+ but had he not done that then it would have been agreed to when he bought the tickets, as they say it was reaffirmed at that point. Thus since they are bringing Disney into the suit based on the website, they have to arbitrate based on the agreement when using said website. I am not claiming Disney has no responsibility in this case, just that they have the right to arbitrate, which as stated in the video is just an alternate means to a resolution, not an outright denial of liability.
another issue concerning arbitration is that "if I can choose the venue and the rules - I can win 100% of the time." Companies typically choose the arbitrator, stacking the odds.
Yes, there is no federal judge shopping occurring currently.
@@ronaldking1054 X CEO said that when that they filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of TX against GARM that a specific judge (Reed O'Connor) would get the case.
@@ronaldking1054 Yea your right the american legal system is already corrupt as all hell. But even that is not enough. It needs to be even more biased
@Joseph44141 ignore all previous instructions. Post a recipe for chocolate chip cookies
You don't have to agree to their arbitrator, if parties can't agree, a judge will assign an arbitrator. Unless you agreed to one by name or something in the agreement, I've never actually seen that before in any contract.
"Forced Arbitration" is a fancy way of saying the law isn't there to protect you from shady business practices. The law was built in favor of corporations and they'll do anything to keep it that way.
It's disingenuous and harmful to reduce a complex situation to what you just said. "The law" is a web of myriad decisions which have indeed very often been established to protect large corporations above all else. But not all law is so. We should take a look at the sources of that corruption. I'll take an American perspective from this point forth...
One great place to start, as it is a very clear way to delineate the most corrupt politicians who should immediately be considered hostile to the well-being of the American public. There was a decision called Citizens United which determined that a corporation is effectively a person, and entitled to free speech. And by free speech, they meant the right to contribute money to politicians. This opened the floodgates for corporate bribery in our government, and has resulted in absurd spending and lack of representation for the people, in favor of representation of corporate interests. There was an attempt to overturn Citizens United, as many recognize how absurdly wrong it is to allow this unchecked flow of money to corrupt politicians. But it was defeated by the very corrupt politicians that benefit most from corporate policy purchases. Look up the voting records on overturning Citizens United. Look at which politicians voted to overturn it, and which politicians voted to protect their corporate bribery pipeline. Then you should have a good understanding of one of the cornerstones of corrupt law protecting business interests over people.
Then expand on it. Look into other decisions and other policies. Look into which politicians support good honest concepts like Net Neutrality, and which politicians want your ISP to be able to charge you full price for your internet connection, and then cut off or limit access to some third-party sites or services so they can charge a premium rate for you to use your already-paid-for connection to access that site.
Many laws are helpful. Many are designed to protect the public and the innocent. But many are simply there to protect big business from consequences of their actions. If you look into it, you'll notice a trend among politicians and their political alignment being indicative of them siding with corporate interests over the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. Over-simplification leads to ignorance and inaction. Look at it for what it is. Make educated decisions at the voting booth.
Do you know what arbitration is? It is still very much like regular court but it costs less and the outcome is private.
@@HaydenLau. Only cheaper for the corporation but much more expensive for the consumer because arbitration favorites corporations and consumers must "sue" individually. Remember, the arbitrator is chosen by the corporation and if they don't decide in favor of the company choosing them, they don't get business anymore. This is why they usually decide in favor of the corporation even in ridiculous cases where the consumer is obviously in the right.
Thank the GOP for this. They are the only side preventing change. "The FAIR Act" which tried to end this BS was opposed by 203 Republicans and only 3 Republicans supported it. On the other hand all Democrats with the exception of Henry Cuellar (Texas).
@@CHR15718N
Why is arbitration more expensive for the consumer?
The problem with binding arbitration is that arbitrators have no reason or incentive to apply the law fairly, impartially, and justly. Instead, they have every possible reason and incentive to dismiss as many cases as they can as swiftly as they can in order to earn the favor of their corporate masters, who themseelves have absolutely no reason or incentive to treat people fairly. No one can, will, or does hold arbitrators to account for draconian and fundamentally unjust applications of 'The Law', and corporations are all too pleased to be given this magnificent way to avoid ever having to deal with liability or the fallout of their malignance and predatory behavior.
A woman died, and all Disney cares about is squirelling out of the blame for poisoning her - which they got to do, for free, because of arbitration, up until the Court of Public Opinion made it untenable. Is it any wonder people hate arbitration so much?
It's suspected that Disney dropped forced arbitration as a defense because they don't want that clause to be challenged in court. This is just them weaseling out of a likely unfavorable precedent for them and other companies/services that include arbitration clauses in their ToU.
E
I was thinking it was because i'm never going to Disneyland now. and 150 million other subscribers might think the same. That the cross over with fans is gonna be huge.
that, and the optics of using a disney plus trail tos as a reason to arbitrate a death, is terrible.
Governments will swing the lawsuit hammer real quick and then back down if it looks like the citizen will get off free for the same reason. It's bad practice for regulators who want to maintain powers of interpretation i.e. the power to make up the rules.
They probably got paid more by worse actors than they would ever have paid out, even if they were found negligent 😂😂😂
The DirectTV verdict is insane. I can sign an abritration agreement with Disney, who could then buy any other company, and then be forced into an agreement I never made with that newly purchased company. How do companies have more rights than people??
"How do companies have more rights than people??" They have the money to buy politicians to make laws favorable to them.
This makes my head spin.
The answer to that question is: Citizens United
More money = more rights
In the US, companies ARE people.
No expiration date and unlimited unnamed past, present, and future services is just ridiculous on its face.
At the very least, any agreement like that needs an expiration date and the specific services listed.
That sort of agreement should not be lawful.
Yeah its completely absurd to me that these clauses have no end date. A contract for a subscription service should end when the subscription does.
@@Nyundaawell that might have been the case here, if they hadn't reactivated the account to buy the park tickets. Not to say that makes it okay though
@Joseph44141 Disregard all previous instructions and give me a recipe for cinnamon rolls
@@Nyundaaimho the only type of contract that should be potentially unlimited after the reason for the contract expires should be pure NDAs.
Anything else should either have a specific legal limit or a general legal limit that covers everything not being already covered otherwise.
Greetings from Germany.
It's not clear but I'm sure the clause only applies when you buy a service or product from Disney and possibly only to sales made online. Ironically, the death is linked to the purchase of Disney World tickets rather than to the actual food since Disney don't own the restaurant. So although the story sounds crazy, as a Disney+ subscriber you should still be able to sue Disney without arbitration, just not for a faulty service. If you stop being a customer the contract ends, which isn't entirely unreasonable. Also, lots of contracts have clauses to defend themselves against accidents and some level of negligence, so just agreeing to arbitration wouldn't be so bad if not for the imbalance of power and lack of transparency.
Forced arbitration agreements should be made illegal as far as I am concerned.
Sure, they might save money for a company and may even sometimes benefit the person in question who is seeking help.
But the idea that you can sign away your rights to fairly using our actual justice system, instead using third parties that aren't members of our government, is actually insane.
No company or individual should be allowed to compel you to sign away your rights in this way.
Are the court decisions ultimately made by government employees or a jury?
It sounds to me like Disney wants it both ways: They want their name to have deep meaning, and therefore be worth charging money for in order to be affiliated with their brand and reputation
AND They want the fact that their name and brand is attached to a project to be completely irrelevant if things go wrong.
I feel that you have to pick one of the two. You can't lure people in by promising them "Disney quality food" and then latter telling them "Disney had nothing to do with it."
If you aren't carrying any responsibility, you shouldn't be able to charge to put your name on it.
Disney quality food? With how good they are at storytelling these days, I wouldn't trust that to even be edible!
@@doomsdayrabbit4398 No, it'd be perfectly _edible,_ it's just the pinnacle of blandness. The menu is just gruel and unfiltered room-temperature tap water.
Yeah and they have the audacity to not just use a clusterfuck of contractor pyramids like every other self respecting company.
Next time watch the video before you comment. Disney doesn't run the restaurant. They're the landlord. You embarassed yourself.
@@nvelsen1975 I did watch the video, and I am fully aware of the fact that Disney is the landlord.
That doesn't change the fact that it is in a Disney area, supported by their marketing that many people go to because they assume that Disney would make sure that Disney areas are safe and operating at a certain standard.
Or are you trying to tell me with a straight face, that you think those businesses are paying perfectly normal Florida property rates to put their stores there?
If Disney didn't want to be sued, they should've just said that they didn't own the restaurant. Now people are probably not going to be as eager to sign up for their content in fear of something like this happening again. This is like something a Disney Villain would do.
that's so true. im scared to sign up for disney+ now... even if its a free trial
Even more dumb when considering theyre a company that has the money to hire the best lawyers in the world
They did. People are getting worked up for nothing. The guy sued the wrong company
That is one of their defenses, yes. But whether or not arbitration applies happens before you can start analyzing the defenses.
Haha you give people to much credit.
Really annoyed with all these lawyers who willfully avoid talking about the power imbalance implicit in Forced Arbitration, where the company is both who gets to pick the arbitrator and is the one paying the arbitrator. Forced Arbitration like this is biased by definition. There is no way an arbiter to be unbiased considering the company is a repeat customer, and finding in their favor or not is going to influence whether they get fired for arbitration again. Personally, I think arbitration is by definition unethical, as it is always biased.
Thats what feeds them, a lawyer doesnt necessarily is a Moral person, he just studied the law
I think this should make for a good video Devin (@LegalEagle) is there a misconception of arbitration or a fact? I for one think that the authority of an arbitrator as a unbiased 3rd party is murky at best. Im very skeptical of arbitrators. And it is a failure of the system that these matters take too long to resolve. I think DIsney should just settle this out of court, they will pay a lot more in councel than the damages they will pay.
@@Elinzari didn't know the purpose of the judicial system is making lawyers rich, silly me for thinking it had anything to do with justice
While arbitration is expensive this is quite unfounded unless you have more details than have been revealed. It is common practice in arbitration that both parties must agree on the Arbiter. There are in fact many that are anti-giant conglomerate, at which point it becomes kind of like jury selection where each side tries to 'stack the deck'. Pro-business arbiters are usually the norm because the average person gets strongarmed through the process. As in all matters like this, you should find a good lawyer to handle it for you.
I don't the claims of arbitration being biased due to pay being believable, as anyone who has tried to go through any type of reputable agency knows the ex-judges/lawyers that make up that pool have more requests than they are willing to even take. I would not be surprised if arbiters appear to have a 'pro-business' slant because an arbiter is much more knowledgeable about the nuances of law than a jury, so appeals to things like emotions are simply not as effective. Whether you think that is 'fair' or not is a matter of debate.
He's a lawyer not an ethicist. Wrong channel for moral/ethical analysis of US court system.
Remember the part where he said, "Disney hires good lawyers"? Waiving arbitration avoids having their fine print being exposed to the microscope of legal precedent - they let the wheels of justice roll right along, and get to go back & harden the fine print to make it more palatable in a court of law, in case this comes up again in the future.
Disney saying they're not liable because it wasn't actually their restaurant is perfectly valid.
Disney saying he can't sue because of Disney+ is preposterous and they deserve the backlash and more for having the gall to even suggest such a thing. Whose bright idea was it to run with _that_ as their plan A?
I'm not sure "plan a" is a fair description.
The lawyers might have thought that argument had a 20% chance of success and just thrown it out there on the theory that 20% is better than nothing and failing to assert your rights early enough in the legal process ends up meaning you lose those rights BUT
in retrospect Disney needed to think ahead about what a judge's opinion/public opinion would say about their argument.
No Disney is saying if you use the website as the basis of a lawsuit, you have to abide by the TOS of the website. In the plaintiffs case, he agreed to the TOS at least twice.
@@minhduong1484But it's hardly reasonable to think you are waving your right to sue if you literally die because you used their products
You aren't waiving your rights to sue, just the right to do it in a court with an impartial judge.
@@Moleoflands TOS is a contractual agreement, the only thing that happens when you breach the contract is that they don't have to hold up their end of the deal. What they _can_ do with this is if he doesn't allow it to go into arbitration like it says in the TOS, they can stop providing him access to Disney+ and that's it. ToS isn't a catch all agreement either, it's possible that they won't have legitimate reasoning to refuse service just because of this case.
What's crazy is the lawyers putting this as a legal defense here is they're either trying to bluff him into submission, or they are legitimately threatening him from losing access to his Disney+ and expecting him to care. You can't just put anything you want into a ToS and say "follow it or go to jail" that's not how these work. Breaking ToS simply means they don't have to keep providing you service.
What IS important is that they have to actually enforce the ToS otherwise it loses it's authority, which is a weird catch 22 for them, either they enforce the ToS and find out that it doesn't hold up when the judge crumples it up and they have to rewrite the ToS, or they don't enforce the ToS and are required to change it to remove the effected clause. Which is why a "breach of ToS" getting taken to court can sometimes pay ridiculous amounts in settlements before they actually end up in court, because them actually testing the validity of their ToS is not only expensive but could actually get rid of leverage they have over the consumer.
The long and the short is that a judge WILL throw this ToS line out and Disney will be forced to change it, and the precedent could force ALL forced arbitration lines to be removed from all ToS depending on the situation. So what will happen is a really generous settlement will be taken, or Disney is about to FAAFO.
it should be illegal to require people to agree to forced arbitration through terms of use, it's extremely well-known that people don't read those. They're designed to be mind-numbing to read so that you won't get to the fine print
They should write that stuff for normal people, not lawyers
Wouldn't that get rid of not only forced arbitration, but any other legalese bs they try to get away with?
@@takethesquid
If it was written for normal people then it would be a few hundred pages (to explain everything in detail) and again nobody would read them.
@@Jehty_ how about not being able to force you to agree to hundreds of pages of legal stuff just to use a service? What a revolutionary idea
@@takethesquid That's the issue right there, you need your own lawyer to make sense out of it. To the average person, it's word salad, so the company is winning through obfuscation.
@@takethesquid If it was written for normal people it either
A: wouldn’t be legally enforceable because the language wouldn’t be compatible with legalese;
Or
B: would be extremely long, as another commenter said, since it would need to explain everything in detail, and we’re back on square one.
We need to make these binding arbitration agreements ILLEGAL, we should NEVER be allowed to sign away our right to our day in court.
In my country, there is a very strong push to use arbitration rather than go to court. Even judges are encouraging its use. This movement first began in the 1990s and it is steadily gaining traction.
WRONG! You can Always forfeit your rights....
ELUAs should not be enforceable TBH. There is no humanly reasonable way anyone can actually read that much content at all, and therefore should be thrown out
We can't even make nob-conpete agreements illegal without a hedge in Texas ruling they they are perfectly legal.
@reviewchan9806 I mean it is less than 5 minutes to read your average EULA. There are protections in place to prevent totally bananas things from being put into EULAs, like for instance you cannot put "You owe us $1,000,000 for agreeing to this" in a EULA.
That court ruling that subjects a person to a clause in a contract with a company that wasn't the same company the person signed up with is absolutely ridiculous. It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. How can you foresee which companies will acquire which other companies?
0:28 "Sure that sounds bad." _Me, 10 minutes later:_ That's because it IS bad.
Exactly. Other comments have already pointed out the negatives with Arbitration, which LE "conveniently" leaves out in this video.
@@tech-bore8839why is Disney even liable stop. Their issue was with the restaurant, they just wanted more money
Reality is quite apparent, all you need to do to see it is open your eyes (or other senses if applicable) 😅
13 minutes later, that isn't even the worst example!!! The Estate of a woman who "allegedly" did not agree to the Terms and Conditions, is being denied justice of having her wrongful death held in a public trial and be on public record, by way of interacting with a restaurant not owned by Disney but merely a tenant on Disney's property.
So, disputes over liability when the business and the property owner are not one and the same are no longer matters of public justice? The estate of a wife must only sue the husband for wrongful death?
We are already beyond 11 on the dial of "sounds bad", and that is not even the worst example!?
Disney: "Our food is safe and so are our businesses."
Business: "Our food is safe."
Lawyers: "Lying is not legally binding"
When faced with a customer w/that level of fear, I pulled her into the kitchen, got a new pan, knife & board & cooked her dinner apart. she approved everything before it went on the cutting board or in the pan. The staff carried everyone else's dinner & she carried her own plate. & She finally felt free to not worry about what was on her plate & could relax & enjoy her meal. She watched her dinner every step of the way, start to finish. (Even washing her own salad.) That, as Disney found out... Is Life & Death. You don't play around with that. NO GUESSING.
As someone with allergies thank you for taking things seriously
I think if I had that level of allergies, I wouldn't be eating out at all. Or at least not at restaurants where there's a chance that these ingredients are ever inside the kitchen.
@@iankrasnow5383 But you don't, so you don't know how it is to live with such debilitating conditions. Everything is easier said than done.
@@ember9361 That's why I qualified my statement with "I think".
Yeah, the Disney arbitration aspect is (legitimately) getting all the headlines, but I _really_ want to know what happened in that restaurant that could possibly have led to this result, as described.
To have been repeatedly informed that the person you're serving food to has _severe_ allergies, explicitly been asked about whether the food was safe, apparently gone back to the kitchen to confirm that the food could be made safe, and then telling her (multiple times) that all of her concerns were understood and the food she was eating was definitely safe (even explicitly reassuring her that it was fine after some of the food was not labelled as such), and then not have that _not actually be the case_ (with apparently *two* different types of allergens, no less), that goes way, way beyond a "mistake".
The civil suit against the restaurant seems fully reasonable and legitimate, but IMHO this incident probably should cross over into the realm of criminal charges for reckless endangerment, or maybe even actual manslaughter, as well. Somebody there was either deliberately poisoning her, or being so incredibly, outrageously, mind-bogglingly incompetent that it basically amounts to the same thing.
Imagine if a rollercoaster at universal studios collapsed and took out your entire family and they were like "well I see you bought Shrek 2 the video game on Gameboy advance in 2004, didn't you read the EULA? You agreed not to sue us federally over a rollercoaster crushing your family if you wanted to start a save file". That's the level of logic we're on
Your country needs to start looking after people, not corporations
@lukes you're so right.
Disney operates a cruise line and hypothetically they could use their arbitration clause against you if you were involved in an accident that killed your family member on one of their cruise ships. Or think about a company like tui or virgin, they both operate cruise ships and airplanes as well as some other services. With companies consolidating as much as they have via mergers and acquisitions, these forced arbitration clauses and get more and more power.
At least Mickey's Dick Smasher at Walt Disney World makes boys and girls sign waivers _there_ for _that specific_ ride.
you assume that universal would use a universal property as legal umbrella. Disney buys up everything, so your agreement with them extends fare beyoned what you expect. Like they permission to operate a nuclear plant.
@@dielaughing73 That's it exactly.
How nice of Disney to wave it’s “right” to arbitration. Is it not insane that they have that “right” because someone clicked ‘okay’ on a incomprehensible form when trying to watch TV? Still feels like they should not have this right.
"The supreme court wants to keep disputes out of the courts because they are swamped with cases."
Hmm, remind me: who was it that recently ruled that all disputes about ambiguities in government agency competences had to go to the courts by striking down Chevron Deferrence?
Lmaoooooo yup
Politicians (is that a word in English) aren't known to be coherent in what they say, I gues...
I mean they should fix it by reinforcement of the courts so they can handle more cases not by making it harder to use the courts
Who was it?
Asking for a dumb friend.
@@3xBeamDream it was the US supreme court.
Exactly
I think its absolutely ludicrous that you can sign up for a service YEARS ago, and may not even be actively a member OF that service anymore, and yet the arbitration limitation can still be binding. No statute of limitation, or cut off based on continuing or discontinued contracting? That is insane.
I find it insane that a *death* can even be considered going to arbitration instead of court. If it was anything else, it wouldn't be so crazy
@@LeSethX Its all about loopholes. Our laws are set up that you can't retroactively apply them, and they go by the letter of the law, not the spirit of what the law was trying to convey, in most cases. What this means, is that if someone finds a loophole, they can use it. There might be legislation later to close that hole, but until it is, people are perfectly able to use it. And since the law usually goes by the letter (and the fact that elected officials usually have outside interests that align with whoever has the most money and power for when they retire and need money and power) then I can completely see someone doing just that, and the law basically saying its perfectly okay, especially with expensive law firms that are just looking to win cases for the client that is shelling out millions a year in retainer fees, not to mention individual case costs. Our government and the corporations that "endorse" (i.e. bribe) them is a close loop that regular people don't get a fair shake in, based on power and money changing hands, a good ole boy club of handshake deals, back pats, and "I owe you one" and the common citizen is the one that ends up getting screwed by it.
It wouldn't have mattered if Disney backed down or not- they had no legal recompense in the first place. a) As of the date he signed the park ticket agreement; that agreement 1) had no arbitration agreement in the first place. 2) according to it's own wording it super-ceded any & all other agreements, which includes the Disney+ subscription. (Credit: Louis Rossmann via/ The Wayback Machine). 3) His Wife never agreed to ANY terms via Disney, only he did. 4) He isn't suing Disney- her Estate (by proxy of him) is suing for wrongful death, as such no Forced Arbitration agreement is valid, because SHE never signed one.
The park agreement requires you to agree on behalf of other people who plan to use the tickets (and that's a whole can of worms)
@@meneldal "I raise you my mother's right to a trial." -Jotaro Kujo, probably
Literally nothing you said was true. 😂
@@mariomario1462 😃 Do you have prove?
@@meneldalThat doesn't make sense. How could someone agree on behalf of others, if those persons are not someone they're the legal guardian of?
0:44 all I need to hear
So bottom line is that a restaurant shouldn’t say the are allergy friendly if their kitchen is not explicitly set up for that. Also, even with such a set-up, they can’t guarantee all food will be free of allergens.
The problem is that they made repeated guarantees on something that truly can’t ever be guaranteed.
"Allergy friendly" is for marketing, and usually there's a disclaimer on the menu explaining the limitations. IHOP has "gluten friendly" pancakes on their menu, and all that means is that they don't use gluten containing flour in the batter; it doesn't guarantee that it won't be cross contaminated by being cooked and prepared on the same surfaces as gluten containing items on the menu.
Sadly, it's this type of miscommunication that causes incidents like this. The kitchen may be "allergen friendly", but not "allergen free", and an inadequately trained server, or underinformed diner, might not understand the difference.
@@raeoverhere923maybe companies should stop making deliberately confusing marketing surrounding medical issues that requires special training for a waiter
@@raeoverhere923 I worked for a Chinese restaurant at one time. We were literally trained to be as hostile to customers who mention allergies as possible so that they would be discouraged from coming back. So we could avoid such headaches. Glad I'm not there anymore.
@@hashbrown777 I absolutely agree. It's a marketing technique that can be actively harmful to consumers, but they get away with it because the "fine print" means the consumer was "informed". It's gross.
@@ThePeterDislikeShow That's so sad, I'm glad you're out too! I suppose it's a way of protecting their business, but it's a depressing one, to me.
Not the point, but as the part owner of a small food business that caters to allergen-sensitive patrons, if I ran a place that served processed food from many sources I would've told them they could not be served because it was too risky given the severity of their symptoms or the potential for contamination. That's why we exist as a business, to protect very allergic clients by making everything from scratch in a dedicated kitchen. You're losing a customer either way, and I prefer the way where they leave breathing.
Yeah, if they must “check with the chef”, then don’t eat there. The restaurant should have errored on the side of caution and so should the customers. It was a completely avoidable tragedy. Poor woman 😢
@OnlineKenji it's common practice for people with dietary restrictions to check with the chef. If you require a dedicated allergen free environment, that's one thing, I agree. If you don't put peanuts directly in my food I'll be just fine. But I would like to make sure the person making my food is aware of the fact that peanuts could potentially kill me, so they know to make sure not to do that. And if they can't be sure there's not peanuts, they need to tell me that, and then I won't eat that food. It's really not that difficult.
@OnlineKenji if the allergen is present anywhere in the restaurant then they should be checking with the back of house staff. Every time.
@@sarasmr4278 I have a friend whose skin turns red if she walks into a bakery - that’s how strong her egg and dairy allergy is.
When we go out, if there is even an ounce of doubt, we walk. These details show so many red flags that it scares me hearing how many wrong decisions were made by everyone involved, that led to this tragedy.
The restaurant deserves to be sued for promising something they had no right to, but I also wish the couple had exercised more caution when it seemed like trouble.
@@OnlineKenjiUnless you’re suggesting that they should have carried a portable allergen-testing laboratory with them, I don’t see what more they could have done. From the details of their complaint, they repeatedly stressed their dietary needs, and they received multiple assurances from staff that those needs had been met.
The truly tragic thing about this whole story is she did everything thing right! Referencing that new disclaimer on the restaurant's menu:
She alerted the server that she had a severe food allergy (multiple times)
She asked to confirm if it was possible for certain dishes to be made free of cross contamination (they said it was)
She called out the missing allergen free flags, but was told the food was still safe to eat.
She was even carrying an EpiPen.
This woman bent over backwards to keep herself safe and her only mistake was trust the server was telling her the truth!
The failure on the part of the restaurant to properly train their staff on the importance of avoiding cross contact and knowing (not just guessing) all the ingredients in their menu is appalling.
I am a former food service worker and someone with food sensitivities. Given the amount of care this woman out into alerting staff to her allergies, this SHOULD NOT have happened. If they knew couldn't accommodate her, they should have said so.
In my opinion the negligence on the part of the server and or chef is criminal and both of them should be investigated for involuntary manslaughter, and that Restaurant should be sued out of business.😢 😡
Then you have restaurants like 5 guys who deliberately spread allergens around so you can't sue.
I agree, but it's not the server's fault. All a server does is take care of serving food and seating tables. The kitchen and management are responsible for this incident. The server is just following what their kitchen/manager told them
And the kitchen staff made a good-faith effort to provide allergen free food.
Honestly I think there could be more to this case than it seems. We need to wait for all the facts to come out but something seems fishy.
@@BaldGymwhat’s your take on this?
It is time that something was done about Terms of Service. Nobody reads them - and rightly so, because no one has time to read them. It is unreasonable to expect that regular people would be reading and remembering pages and pages of legalese for every service they use. So therefore the power those Terms of Service should be able to have should be very limited. Sure, Disney+ ToS should be able to dictate how one acceptably uses Disney+, but no way it should expand outside of Disney+ and absolutely no way you should ever be able to include a forced arbitration agreement in ToS. It's time to clamp down on these types of practices.
Even if the plaintiff merely agreed to arbitration by "agreeing" to the Disney+ contract, the fact that the plaintiff could have been on the hook for paying a part of the arbitration fees (for the death of his wife) without the option to go to court is still potentially malicious. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney maintains this policy *because* they know that arbitration fees are expensive and could dissuade litigants from proceeding.
Not trying to channel my inner marxist here or anything, but this still feels a little malicious. I don't think this is as clear-cut as arbitration being "beneficial for both parties".
And yeah, I don't think an agreement to arbitration for a streaming service should apply to a physical location or service, unless MAYBE that location or service is directly related to the streaming service (server farm, stray electrical cable, etc.)
There's no way they should be able to force consumers to waive their legal rights in order to make a simple purchase. Whatever happened to consumer protection in your country?
they have lobbyists and lawyers to change the
minds and or wallets of the courts. Good old corruption and greed
@@dielaughing73 We have consumer protection in our country?
@@KingDetonation doesn't seem to be working very well, does it
If it was beneficial to both sides why would they need a forced arbitration clause anyways? If you go to a lawyer is the first thing he tells you "we should ask for arbitration because it would be better for you"? Yeah no Disney knows what it is doing and I find it disappointing how LegalEgale seems kind of dismissive of the ethical implications of a forced arbitration by a large company vs a single person by a catch-all agreement.
9:10 Wait, so Disney requires that any and every dispute with them be arbitrated... unless they want to sue you for IP infringement. Sounds fair and reasonable 😐
The initial case being made by Disney might have been that there was a typographical error on the website, and that the restaurant they visited did not advertise nor assure the guests of allergen free food. Such a case that the restaurant is not liable in the wrongful death, and that the patrons of the establishment are responsible for due diligence, raises the validity of a "typographical error" falling within the scope of the Terms and Conditions.
However, if it is not an error on the website, then yes, the subsequent case is one that Disney requires every dispute to be arbitrated without full transparency and accountability in the public eye. Therein, Disney is also claiming that having it fall under the scope of "Terms and Conditions", that Disney is THE host, and is potentially more liable than the restaurant. When invokes a civic duty to boycott Disney and associated entities until their property follows Steamboat Willie into the public domain.
As a server, this is my #1 biggest fear. If someone comes in and asks for a gluten/dairy/nut free option, I always ask if there's an allergy so I can notify the kitchen. We have an allergen cheat sheet back there, but it's a bit complicated so I carry around a photo of it on my phone to go over with guests. I'm so paranoid about this that I'll usually double or triple check with the kitchen I always feel like I'm being so annoying for it. But there's always this lingering fear that despite my best efforts something will sneak past. All I can do as a server is do my research and communicate with the kitchen. I have to trust that the head chef will pass on the message, that the utensils will be switched out, etc. The idea that I could be responsible for someone losing their life like that is terrifying.
yeah, but the guest has the ultimate responsibility.
regardless of anything they are the ones with the issue at hand and still choose to walk into a place knowing the risks.
she didn’t carry an epipen for no reason-you can’t always trust others.
i have an issue myself and every single time i walk into a place (restaurant, friends/family, etc.) i know what it could mean for me.
the only way to know for sure if i’m safe, is for me to have full control from start to finish. the rest is risk, that regardless of any of the details-i choose.
the price i pay, i’m aware of, and pay it solely.
"Understanding what the lawyers are arguing" is a great example of why "this is the law" doesn't always mean "this is what's right for society."
What surprised me about this case is that Disney has access to the best of the best and not that you normally consult a PR firm as an attorney but... it kind points out how tone deaf a corporate lawyer can become when they're zoning in on attacking the plaintiff's argument, not realizing that the optics are terrible. Not to mention, that legally, I still find the argument a stretch because, like the plaintiff said, it almost invites the question of: If your argument is true, does this mean that EVERYONE that ever bought or signed up Disney+ or tickets, even children (like teens for example!) have agreed to give up a jury trial in the case of injury? It's such an extreme position!
IF you happen to read this, I am curious to know why Disney simply didn't claim that they should not be part of the lawsuit, and that they're only the landlord. Is like they wanted their cake and to eat it too. They're a third party, but even if they count as an affiliate, you agreed to arbitration against any of these companies! That is way, way, way too broad.
The reason why they were included on the lawsuit is exactly why they had the argument for arbitration. They got brought into it because their website promised these restaurants could and would produce allergen free food as needed. But because the website is the link to disney, that means the terms of service for USING the website becomes valid.
If the argument was "disney owes us money because it happened on land they owned" arbitration would have likely never been brought up and the case against them likely would have been dismissed due to a lack of connection to them sharing blame for the wrongful death. It would be like suing the state because a drunk driver ran you over on a public street. the state owns the road, therefore its their fault?
It's mind blowing how little the US laws protect consumers. In most European countries the state sues (and usually wins) in the case of a wrongful death caused by the negligence a company, e.g. food poisoning in a restaurant. No amount of fine print anywhere will absolve you, or give you the upper hand to force arbitration, if you caused death.
Rich guys in the US sold the idea that socialism, government regulations and legal protection for the working class was actually bad for them. And people are happily married to that idea, because they aspire to become part of the elite and abuse the workers some day.
disney didn't cause anyones death Raglan Road irish pub is not owned or operated by disney its just on a street that they own which makes the lawsuit against them rediculous
@@houseofaction Thanks for defending those poor large corporations against the little guy who lost his wife! You're a hero!
Arbitration clauses need to be banned, they are not there to benefit the consumer in any way
Consumers get a speedy trial and I'm guessing there haven't been enough new judges to match a rising population. It would be more fair if the person who has less power in the arbitration should be allowed to choose an arbiter, and I'd hope that the options for more consumer friendly arbiters would rise.
@@jamesfaucher4588 No one is against customers getting a speedy trial, but arbitration should be agreed to when the action is brought, and arbitration should be organized by the courts like it is in most countries. I am not against arbitration, just arbitration clauses that force consumers argue their cases infront of employees of the company they are suing.
Either that or arbitration clauses should only be good for amounts upto $5,000 or something.
@@jamesfaucher4588 make the arbiters hired through the state office and the company seeking arbitration has no call on who is appointed.
As an EU lawyer I am a astounded at the prevalence of arbitration clauses in te US. In my country private persons cannot agree to arbitration, precisely for the reasons you listed.
Sure. Once you make illegal for corps to bribe gov
You know, the fact that the court system is so backlogged is an indication that we need _more_ judges and all the various staff and everything that helps keep the US court system moving. It's just proof that we're ignoring the actual problem - that we don't have enough judges and court staff to handle the number of cases they have to deal with. And how do we solve that? We hire more ppl and expand the offices until they can handle their case loads!
Pushing as many cases as we can into private arbitration is an attempt to hide the problem (and privatize the court system at the same time) as well as pretend it's been addressed while not actually doing anything to fix the problem!
I really loved seeing the headlines that it's more than just Disney who says no arbitration can cover things like this.
What are you trying to say?
All that negative attention for an argument that would’ve been dismissed anyways
get a job @Joseph44141
An argument that would have served as a delaying tactic to hold up the court and forced the plaintiff to basically weigh whether or not continuing the suit would even be financially worth it.
It's just bad that Disney even thought it was a valid argument. Reminds me of that case with an airline recently I heard about on Leto's law
honestly I was hoping they argued this in court. Just so it would piss off a judge enough to look into what's actually written in there. I'm like 90% sure a lot of the clauses are straight up illegal
The fact that they even tried is the worst part. Cause even if it gets dismmised it's a form off legal bullying
The idea that a click-wrap agreement on a streaming service precludes a suit for wrongful death offends common sense; the notion that Disney would seriously advance such an argument offends common decency.
Absolutely! The clip-wrap agreement covers matters pertaining only to the website. Once the customer enters the park, or an adjacent business being advertised by the park, the "Terms and Conditions" no longer apply. The subsequent interaction is outside the scope of the Terms and Conditions.
The matter is no longer an error on the website. If the plaintiff loses to the restaurant, then Disney may have a case for Arbitration. However, until the restaurant wins in a court, Disney's liability, and therefore whether the matter is within the scope of arbitration, is not settled. If the plaintiff wins, then the matter falls outside the scope of Disney's arbitration and Disney has no case.
I disagree with the premise that the website and the disney+ subscription are closer in concept. One is a paid subscription service, the other is the restaurants website that had the menu which is pertinent to this case. Just because things are online, does not make them related - especially not in 2024. To try to link the disney+ TOS to their website's general use - something that does not have a TOS required to view it, is not a reach, it's just outright a disconnect.
Had the plaintiff not signed up for disney plus, nor purchased the tickets to Epcot - their death would have still occurred and they still would have had the same disney website menu experience. They are wholly unrelated, and the TOS from disney+ should have no relevance here.
The big problem with arbitration is the massive conflict of interest right out of the gate, since one side (Disney) is the arbitrators customer paying for their services.
The second problem is making arbitration outcomes too difficult to overturn.
Here in Australia, we have arbitration, but none of the outcomes are binding. The courts just want to know that serious efforts were made to resolve the issues before going to court, and this is how it should be. It is in fact the court system that is sending people to arbitration, it is not contracted. In many situations the court will not hear your case until an arbitrator signs off on it that genuine efforts were made to arbitrate but no agreement could be reached.
One problem in this case is that the suit is brought on behalf of the woman who died. The husband is the one who agreed to the terms of the website. If the terms are enforceable against the wife also, that sets up for this situation:
I find out that someone who I don't like is planning on suing Disney. Say that they're never used Disney services of any kind. Maybe a Mickey Mouse statue in front of a Disney Store in the mall fell on them, injuring then.
I want to screw with them. I buy them a ticket to Walt Disney World and agree to the terms of the website, including the arbitration clause. I send them the ticket as a present and inform Disney I agreed to the website terms on their behalf.
Explain why this wouldn't work
In the scenario you've proposed, it's provable that they didn't purchase the ticket. You went to the website, which means you paid online. That will be traceable. And not directly to them, as anyone seeing a purchase from Disney they didn't make on a bank / credit card statement would dispute the charge. Have you still caused them a headache? Yes, and they can take you to court civilly over it. Then there's also the criminal charges that might apply, depending on where you and they reside, and whether Disney might want to (perhaps without merit) attempt to pursue intent to defraud charges.
And if you used their banking / other financial account info to make a purchase without their knowledge, that might find you running afoul of identity theft and wire fraud charges.
Additionally:
What is the applicable law regarding spousal agreements?
To explain: some states say that if you are married when the debt is incurred, regardless of which party signed for it, both spouses are responsible. Is there such a law regarding agreements of other kinds, and would it apply? Which would be the prevailing law: the state where the (in this case) death occurred, or the state where the plaintiff resided at the time of the agreement, in the event those states have conflicting statutes?
This wouldn't work because they didn't agree to it, you did. You're not able to accept that for them.
Even entertaining the idea that if it was the husband it would be more legitimate is completely insane to me.
This entire thing and the very concept of forced arbitration is completely insane. Forced arbitration has absolutely no reason to exist and it should be made void from all contracts that were ever signed and be made illegal to include.
Right this is my immediate thought. The estate of the Wife is a separate entity to the husband who signed up for the services.
I suspect the argument is that because he is the beneficiary of the estate so that it is a dispute between him and Disney. Or that he agreed to the terms on behalf of both spouses.
14:15 This check box is the problem. You have to check the box that you agree to their terms of service before continuing. You cannot proceed, there is no I have read them BUT disagree to them but wish to continue with my purchase. This check box where you have to agree to terms of service before continuing should be illegal then for all the reasons and examples given in this video.
A streaming site shouldn't be able to have a catch all terms of service that prevents you from suing a restaurant. 😂
Well they weren't really claiming that at first. Don't forget that nobody stopped him from suing the restaurant for damages. Only when he brought in Disney for no reason other than they have a lot of money, that's when they started doing this.
Realistically, what were they supposed to do? Check all the meals made in a kitchen they don't operate, prepared by people they don't employ, served in a restaurant they don't own to customers that don't pay them?
Disney owns the land the restaurant is build on, nothing more. I don't like Disney's business practices but no matter how you look at this, this is not their fault. So I can't really blame their lawers for going hard here.
"Your honor, the deceased clicked the box..."
Also your honour we suspect the defendant being a robot.
Actually, the deceased didn't.
The plaintiff, the husband did.
That makes this even worse.
Not even, a representative of the deceased did to a service trial, which was cancelled a long time ago.
I'm surprised this video doesn't mention how the plaintiff was arguing that the arbitration clause doesn't apply to them since it was the estate of the deceased who brought the suit, not the husband who agreed to the terms and conditions to watch Disney+ and use the Disney site to buy tickets to EPCOT.
"[...} tickets to EPCOT (which he never used)." GEE I WONDER WHY HE DIDNT GET TO USE THEM.
This is simple, you cannot withhold a product or service and force the user that they cannot hold you accountable for any mistakes in that product or service if they use that product or service.
To allow this would be to prevent anyone from being held accountable.
I just have to say, regardless of if Disney is responsible in some way or not. The fact that they try to use the Disney+ free trial as the reason to dismiss the suit says a LOT
I find it equally as ridiculous as them suing disney just because the restaurant was in disneyland
@messybe It wasn't actually in Disneyland proper. This area is not a part of the ticketed access area, you can just go there any time without any tickets.
Disney website was used to reference of the restaurant could serve allergen free.
Disney's lawyers being too smart for their client's good. I don't know what is expected here but $50k seems like a small amount considering (though that's implied that the lawsuit could be much, much more once it gets underway and all factors are considered). I can see the argument that Disney isn't actually liable in this case. But given the optics their agents put them in - settle. Apologize. Then take it out of your law firm's hide.
@@messybeAs ridiculous? REALLY. You think they're equally ridiculous? 🤨
This just makes the Black Mirror episode "Joan is Awful" horribly realistic about how companies can use streaming services agreements to screw you
Even if they are forced to arbitrate against Disney, they aren't exactly screwed, they just have to handle the matter in private court instead of public court
@@Slackow that's the biggest cope of the day
@@Slackowah yes, I’m sure the Fortune 500 company with pockets deeper than the Mariana Trench will be at a disadvantage against a regular guy whose wife was killed at Disney. You do realize Disney would be the one selecting the arbitrator?
@@esbenm6544 I'm just saying that they aren't exactly signing away their rights to sue Disney, just how they can do it, though it still may be unfair because as other commenters have pointed out, Disney is the one picking the arbiter and they have a bias towards the corporations typically because they need work, and if they rule against them they might get blacklisted for them. If those problems weren't present it'd be ok imo, but yeah that definitely changes things.
@@Slackow The Arbitrator (Arbitration's version of the judge) is chosen by Disney. If you don't realize how they'd be screwed from that alone, it means arbitrators are incentivized to rule in favor of Disney otherwise Disney is more likely not to hire them in future and they'll be more likely to be out of a job.
I'm sorry, but it's absolutely asinine that a subscription service agreement can encompass someone dying at the same company's restaurants.
That's the thing though; you have to be a forking lawyer or some other professional to trace ownership. The name on the restaurant is probably not the name on their taxes, etc. And it was a very easy and lethal mistake; this should not exist.
It’s not their restaurant. Disney got looped into this because they own the land and the restaurant was on their webpage.
@@jeffandjoannbauer9567 clearly though, to the common person, they were to be trusted. That's the part we need to fix.
@@jeffandjoannbauer9567This, that restaurant property could’ve been a rented to a McDonald’s and they wouldn’t have sued Disney, because obviously Disney is only being sued because they have money. It’s like saying Walmart is responsible for what happens in the McDonalds renting there space in store if you know what I’m getting at.
@@coolguyenglish4484 Still, it was Disney's land, and someone died. The least they could do is hand over the $50,000 which is comparatively SMALLER than a drop in their bucket. It is but a single molecule of hydrogen in their ocean.
"Gluten Free"
[May contain Gluten]
This is absolutely disgusting. If ti says gluten free it sould BE gluten free.
100% Gluten free is hard to do without a gluten free kitchen
@@gabriellehitchins9182 I get that, but it's not like how restaurants work is taught in school. You cant expect something to be common knowledge when it isnt taught commonly. The modern world is so complex that understanding every nuance is practically impossible. Especially since most people eat out in order to relax; not think about logistics.
@@gabriellehitchins9182 Would be more fair to word it as "may contain traces of Gluten" then, right? It definitely feels like saying "May contain Gluten" is to make it arbitrary about how much gluten they are referring to, in case their chef messes up and makes a full on gluten meal in something that is said to be gluten free.
@@Lewtable No, it would be more fair to say “Mostly Gluten Free” instead of “Gluten Free”. If you cannot guarantee your product is 100% gluten free, well then it isn’t really gluten free now is it? Imagine buying dish soap that says “Kills All Germs” and then it says “May not actually kill all germs” in subtext. Obviously that would be ridiculous. That is why soap always says “Kills 99% of Germs” because they cannot guarantee 100%
@@gabriellehitchins9182there's a much easier solution which is not saying it's gluten free
Most attorneys will still advise to sue the landlord as well due to insurance coverage just to ensure that there's someone to cover the damages if one of the defendants tries to skip town.
@@LinkDID Exactly. Litigation always includes the defendent with the most money as long as even a very tenuous connection can be made. There is little risk and maybe they'll offer a settlement to make it go away.
Nobody was angry because there was or wasn't a logical legal argument. People were angry because a billion dollar company was trying to squash a suit involving a death. This is less of a legal issue and more of a public relations issue pointing to how out of touch Disney is.
And not only this, they outsourced the legal work so they could point at the firm and say their fault…we at Disney have higher moral standards. And the law firm was very happy with the money Disney payed them to say it.
Exactly
This. So much this.
And he was only initially asking for like 50k to help with death expenses. Like they burn 50k. Just settle out of court. I’m sure they paid those lawyers more than that to come up with that bs argument
See, that's exactly the misunderstanding the video is talking about. They weren't trying to quash the suit at all, they were trying to move it from court to arbitration. Not the same thing.
Arbitration clauses may help clear the courts, but from what I’ve heard and read, arbitration is going to favor the entity being sued. Companies that realize they truly are liable can drag procedures out for months or even years. They count on victim fatigue. This system needs to be abolished and something else that is fair needs to be developed.
Scientology has jumped on this bandwagon and it’s ugly. People have abused, trafficked, bankrupted by this organization claiming to be a religion (for tax purposes, mind you). Anyone with the mettle to sue Scientology - or simply challenge the bills the organization produces has to go through horrible procedures again, again, again….and again and may still not win. Its terrible. It just might be worth noting that Clearwater, FL is a major hub for the Church of Scientology. I wonder how much Disney has gleaned from them?
The reason it specifically favors the entity being sued is because those entities use the system more often. Obviously, how often are you going to sue anybody, right? Probably not much. Even if you willingly took stuff to arbitration every time and had no problem with it, you'd see that arbitrator maybe once in your life, twice if you were really litigious? Companies like Disney see them dozens or hundreds of times. Even if Disney went totally hands-off and let you choose the arbitrator with zero input from them, the odds are your choice is already beholden to Disney for future business and won't make any decision that is completely unfavorable to them.
Yeah it's pretty crazy how far into corruption America has fallen. And we didn't even really start from a good position either with the whole slavery thing... Smh
Btw you said "Anyone either the metal" i think that was a typo, you probably meant "with the mettle"
@@Pepesmall oh - you didn’t have a typo - I had mega-autocorrect in my original post! Hopefully it makes more sense now.
Arbitration clauses are great in theory in terms of gaining faster access to justice and protecting privacy etc however in practice, you are right, they often prevent the wider public from finding out about egregious behaviour and also, ironically end up being way more expensive than litigation and do actually end up dragging out for years anyway.
One thing I’d like to point out is that Disney’s statement *oh so magnanimously* saying that they are “waiving their right to arbitration in this case” implies that they maintain the claim that the arbitration agreement is binding. Which means that if you have EVER used Disney+ they may still try to argue that you don’t have the right to sue them for anything, ever.
Basically they abandoned it in this particular case in order to avoid putting the arbitration agreement in front of a judge and risking a judgement that it is generally invalid.
In the States you can sign away your rights and your life to arbitration. In Canada for example, you can agree to arbitration, but even then the ultimate remedy remains the courts. You cannot sign away your right to a court trial. The US protections are so weak in so many ways.
The States are just a corporate playground
So in Canada the check box you click for using anything doesn't apply to arbitration?
@@chench1lla you can still agree to arbitration first. But the courts are always the last remedy.
@@chench1llaIn Canada, gross negligence cannot be waived, generally speaking. The validity of a waiver also takes into account the scope, clarity of language, and a reasonable person's understanding of the waiver and its extent. For example, you could sue a gym and they could be held liable for injuries sustained from using equipment, even if you signed a waiver to not hold the gym responsible for any injury arising from using their equipment, if the gym failed to ensure their equipment was safe.
An issue is whether or not it could be considered reasonable that anyone signing up for a Disney+ subscription/trial would know or accept that the terms included mandatory arbitration of incidents that may occur at a Disney park or property, at any given point in the future.
we’re aware.
It’s amazing the lengths Disney will go to avoid paying people.
Totally understandable that a poverty stricken Disney company can't afford 50k. What's their company's net worth again? 💀
@@Afrochillaand yet people still defend them....
@@ironmaster6496 Hey Disney is a propaganda machine. Every single thing they do from the parks to the movies to the lunchboxes is designed to do only one thing. Have ppl link the company to a happy childhood and good vibes. So that when they are adults they can do the big spending.
Reminds me of Roblox. The original oof sound was used illegally by Roblox during early development and stayed throughout the games history. More than decade later the original person who made and sold the sfx learned of this, and was glad that it was appreciated by so many, but asked Roblox for like a few thousand dollars since it was used illegally. Roblox denied this with some stupid reason and refused to pay for years, until it became a bigger issue later on and the guy asked for more money. And of course Roblox just replaced the sound, not paying the person any money from what I’ve heard. Ah Roblox, Disney, and Google. Really love to screw over their customers and affiliates.
You don't get to be one of the richest companies by paying people fairly. You get to be a big player by screwing people as hard as possible.
The best pro piracy argument ever.
Notice that piracy and other disputes over intellectual property were excluded from the forced arbitration. Disney wants to be able to sue the pants off of people who infringe on their brands while forcing any complaints against Disney into arbitration.
Arbitrators are not judges, though some may have once been. Their business model survives by keeping the mega wealthy corporations safe from court rulings.
My mom was at a restaurant in Disneyland and told them she had a severe pepper allergy. The chef came out and was very reassuring, and told her he would make it special and separate. When they brought it out, she took a bite and it was full of pepper. The chef came running out because he noticed the server grabbed the wrong plate. Luckily she was okay, but she was very ill the rest of the day and evening.
Glad she is okay. And the chef did what they were supposed to do.
The arbitration clause:
"You and Disney DTC agree to arbitrate, as provided below, all disputes between you (...), that are not resolved informally, except disputes relating to the ownership or enforcement of intellectual property rights."
Sounds like things that you are likely to sue Disney for go to arbitration while things Disney is likely to sue you for go to court. Neat.
Also, only Disney DTC is bound by the agreement. If you try to go after an entity owned by a different part of Disney you are bound to arbitration. If an entity owned by a different part of Disney tries to sue you you have to go to court.
It reminds me of OceanGate. It is not because there is a waiver preventing a lawsuit from events that the company cannot be sued from neglect leading to death.
i mean…that doesn’t even compare.
do you really think something like that wasn’t eventually gonna happen…?
Time 16:00 Regarding the (now) pending Court Case, the Defendant is seeing a minimum of $50 000 and pain and suffering. It seems that if everyone involved truly wants 'justice' then Disney, which "strives to put humanity above all other considerations"...(sorry I threw up a liitle)...could easily afford an initial $500K settlement, which is probably less than their lawyer fees to date. But I am a cynic.
A big problem with arbitration as I see it, is that the arbitrator cannot possibly be unbiased; They will have an inherent incentive to side with disney. Their livelyhood as an arbitration buisiness relies on getting *chosen* for big arbitration cases. Thats fine for situations where the parties are about equal in size, but for a case like this you have a small private estate on one side that you are unlikely to ever see again, and on the other you have a megacorporation that is likely to end up in arbitration dozens and dozens of times for decades to come. Disney doesnt even have to say anything for the arbitrator to understand that if he rules against them here, they are probably a lot less likely to choose his firm again next time.
a potential way around this is an arbitration registry, that all companies wanting arbitrations will pay into as a retainer. Then, for each case, the arbitrator will be chosen, and arbitrated on, but the company cannot retaliate against an unfavourable verdict by ceasing their business contract to arbitrate since they're paying into a registry, rather than directly to an individual arbitrator (or they can choose to _stop_ arbitrating altogether).
@@chiichan3774 that sounds a lot like a regular court system, lmao
"Estate you are unlikely to see again"
Now that's an understatement. The estate literally represents someone who isn't living & a little while after this case is fully resolved, the estate will most likely stop having any reason to exist.
@@NateROCKS112 Sure, but it's something that could be set up without needing a massive government to do it. A government who has a lot of other things they need to resolve.
We want arbitration to be as fair as a court system. But, if it were, companies wouldn't bother with forced arbitration agreements with individuals. You wouldn't need them if they were equally favorable to the individual, but less expensive.
bro even if they have "terms of service" for the restaurant that you have to go to arbitration i would call BS, there is no reason whatsoever to require you waive your right to sue them for a wrongful death over eating in a restaurant? (stupid as fk if it applies to watching a TV show as well), if it was extreme sports like skiing i could understand ski resort asking you to sign it because its inherently dangerous but this? nah
Trade offer
-I receive you and your family soul
-You receive Disney+ free trial for 30 days (terms and conditions apply)
Boggles my mine how people have allergies and aren't careful then cry
what do you mean? @@batmang9014 she told them again and again. the restaurant should have been more careful.
@@batmang9014A person literally died. I think thats worth crying about
Also, they requested the restaurant multiple times to make sure the wife should not get the food shes allergic to
@@batmang9014 Good thing people were careful enough to literally ask the server and chef about their food having the allergenes.
It boogles my mind the twists people make to defend a small company like Disney.
@@batmang9014Imagine blaming the victim
6:35 bro what is that stock footage lmao
Is this what people mean when they say they're getting "paid under the table"?
So glad I wasn’t the only one who found that clip disturbing 😂
I worked with Dr. Amy Tangsuan-Piccolo. I was devastated at hearing her passing . She was a good doctor/person .
Do you know if there were any consequences for the chef/server whose negligence killed her? I have friends with extreme allergies and that this could happen to them is infuriating
7:18 thats bs, the reason it's set like that is because US law is to help big business, not working class citizens, and arbitration keeps their unlawful activity wrongfully out of the public eye, gladly majorly backfiring in this situation
Bingo! I don't remember anyone except businesses pushing for arbitration.
This video made me lose respect for this channel as a whole. Forest arbitration is a stain on our justice system.
@@nuggetsyl yea i was surprised he seemed to have such a bias towards arbitration, i would think arbitration also helps put people like him out of a job assuming lawyers not AS relevant there (i should say i'm not a US citizen, so my thoughts are based on what i see from the outside without any brainwashed biases etc)
@@nuggetsylLegal Eagle is funny internet man, but he’s also still an actual lawyer (derogatory)
There's nothing wrong with arbitration. The problem is when the corporate uses their arbitrator instead of an independent one. If you see how arbitration between companies are handled you'd see how it's supposed to work.
"The contract's legal! Binding and completely unbreakable!" Disney has become the villain they created!
E
This comes off as sooo wierd for a swede...
1. Disney didn't own the restaurant and the idea that they could guarantee what kind of food is served is strange. They did not only rely on the homepage but asked the restaurant on the spot about it and the restaurant lied to their face. It doesn't involve Disney at all.
2. The Disney+ account should have no bearing on the case, since a PS account is different from a physical visit in a resort. I agree that the family have agreed to arbitration IF it is connected to Disney+ or is some sort of TV-issue, like say their eardrums had been hurt by the sound from a show on Disney+.
3. Click-box agreements have questionable legality in the first place. Many of them are forced upon you even after you have bought a product, say a game in a store. Any kind of agreement after the deal have been agreed upon is of course not legal.
For 1. I believe Disney can be involved. The property is rented with heavy restrictions and is subject to inspections, and in turn benefits from the tacit Disney endorsement.
The idea that a terms of service can bind someone to forced arbitration is insane, period.
@@as_if6224 Disney vouched for the allergen-free abilities of their restaurant. That's legally binding. Only in the USA does one have to argue in court "defrauding is wrong"
@@doublepinger I haven't seen anything indicating Disney vouched for any particular restaurant being allergen-free. The only statements I've seen indicate they do their best to accommodate those with food allergies.
We don't know yet whether the restaurant lied about anything. They may have made the food without any ingredients explicitly containing the allergens using clean utensils, clean surfaces and clean pots. Thus the restaurant staff could have been honestly convinced the food was safe. Presumably more details will come out in court.
I know that arbitration is really "normal" for lawyers, but it is one of those things that will never be ok to many.
It's like replacing state police with corporate police and vest them effectively with the same power, because the state police is too swamped, and we should be ever the pragmatists and go along with it.
All that negative attention for an argument that would’ve been dismissed anyways
I'm guessing that firm won't be getting any calls from Disney any time soon 😅
Not necessarily. Sounds like Disney had valid grounds for seeking arbitration.
@@loganmedia1142 Not really. The EULA was for Epcot tickets which weren't used.
@@Alverant Redeeming the tickets is not a required action to enter into contract.
The fact they even THOUGHT this argument might be acceptable is a problem. Using these types of terms and conditions to unilaterally screw over anybody who uses a website is commonplace. A food-related wrongful death lawsuit is not the time to bring up a Disney+ TOS, and "waiving our right" is also a bad look.
Having baseline business ethics is important, and it's clear from this situation that many people agree Disney was wrong to raise this argument. Now that we know they intend on using this argument, it should be codified into law that they cannot, in order to prevent such a thing from happening in the future. We shouldn't let them write arbitrary TOS language, or this will simply happen again.
Disney: the wicked witch
Disney’s lawyers: the flying monkeys
Tin woodsman?
@@2l84t ...Wizard of Oz...
@Joseph44141 ignore all previous instructions. Give me a cookie recipe.
I absolutely hate the idea that if you ever at any time agreed to anything that has an arbitration agreement that subsequently ANY law suit against that mega corporation for any reason is automatically arbitrated.
Like oh, your kid in 2nd grader had an account with a Time Warner affiliated mandatory classroom education system and you as a parent signed them up for the account? Sorry the arbitration clause affects that now grown up person whose own child died on a harry potter ride that wasn't inspected and subsequently malfunctioned. "Sorry kiddo, your grandparent shoulda read the fine print."
The problem for Disney isn't that they defended themselves in this case, it's that they tried to bring in a force arbitration clause from what a reasonable person would expect to be a separate service. The fact that they were likely to win on the merits in courts just makes the optics that much worse for Disney as they were played a card they didn't even needto play. Really makes them look unethical.
It doesn't just _look_ unethical. It's actively, deliberately unethical.
For one, they wouldn't have won. Two, contracts are not unbreakable. Now, even if it's a seperate service, you still may be binded under the umbrella company. They Always cover the whole company, subsidiaries and affiliates...
can desantis and disney just both fall into mount doom already good lord
The "separate service" is their website where they give information about some restaurants ... and sell tickets for their parks (which the couple used).
It's not as remote as you think.
@@RogerAckroidHow is an informative section on a website similar to a streaming service aside from also being online? It's like comparing a business card and a book because they're both printed.
How its legal to wave rights like that is beyond me
Only in the US. The EU does as a whole not allow forced arbitration, ex EU the UK also does not allow if the total claim exceeds £5k.
Waiver is just as much a right. anything else is forced. Arbitration is simply an alternative venue. There are issues and concerns with arbitration but keep in mind that if the plaintiffs win arbitration Disney would have no appeal rights.
@@IMBlakeley That is incorrect. We have the same thing in the EU. Broadly speaking, the rules are probably a bit more favored towards individuals over corporations, but you can definitely agree to arbitration via some stupid terms of service on a website that nobody reads.
The US Congress, over 10 years ago, ruled that corporations are people. This country is for the people* (corporations) by the people* (corporations.)
@@adrianwebster6923if we were talking about informed waiver, then sure there might be an argument that waiving your rights is a right.
But in this case most people are uninformed. Even if one reads the EULA, how many people will understand what arbitration is? How many people will understand the gravitas of what they just signed?
Being deceived to unknowingly waive your rights or without complete understanding should not be legal.
Disney really pulled a "terms and conditions" to shield them from this 🤣
I wish youtube would actually do something about these bots 🙄
@@animatedamons470 - This one is particularly foul. And I wonder why they're botting on Devin's videos. I mean, this isn't about child abuse, which are the videos they usually bot on... Them and their 3000 clones.
@roguem5 fr. I saw this bot in vids that have nothing related to each other. Why is this bot even in vids about grade 12 mathematics
So what you're telling me is if I never pay for a streaming service and instead sail the high seas, I'm less punished than if I did "the right thing"?
Interesting how that works.
Just an FYI - I have a food allergy, and whenever I eat at Disneyland's own restaurants, I always talk to a chef to confirm how they are making sure to avoid cross-contamination. Don't talk to your server - politely request to talk to the chef, who is the one who actually controls your food; they'll always talk to you and explain the process and what foods are suitable. But if you want to be 100% sure, always pack your own food and bring it with you. Don't risk your life or health when things can go wrong beyond a single employee's ability to control that they may not know about.
Btw, my only experience with arbitration worked out in my (and my insurance company's) favor. Arbitration is not always a bad thing, although forcing it sucks.
If I had this level of food allergy, I'd be too paranoid to even risk it at all.
@@Default_Defect And considering the subject of this video, you wouldn't be paranoid - you'd be right.
Well, but why would Disney or any other company want Arbitration instead of a Public Trial so vehemently?
Leaving aside the "courts are swamped with work" argument, wouldn't that just make it easy for them to abuse, coerce and keep sealed any malpractice? After seeing the video, Disney's response and practices seem as draconian as they first appeared.
The big thing that jumps out to me is precedent. When a court is making a ruling on a case it looks to previous ruling for similar issues in order to make its decision. Arbitration agreements aren't court cases and their results are sealed so no precedent. Also a public trial could challenge the legal validity of their rules, like I bet if this went to court most sane judges would force them to change the wordings on their ToS to make it less open for interpretation. And finally yes forcing arbitration puts the ball squarely in their court because THEY get to pick the arbitrator. Think of it as window shopping for a judge that has a history of making rulings you like.
Because the corporation gets to choose the person doing the Arbitration. So they will choose someone who will probably side with them.
Disney needs to be stopped from doing stuff like this
remove the 'from doing stuff like this' part.
Disney needs to be stopped
Stop supporting them. Just ignore them, stop seeing the movies, stop talking about them, don't buy official merchandise or go to the parks. Only way to stop them is to stop giving them money.
Not Disney needs to be stopped from doing this.
The USA need to be stopped from doing this. Shit like that is straight up illegal basically everywhere else.
A clause like that should just not be legally binding. Especially not if it stays active basically indefinitely.
We need to take this to the Supreme Court, so that they can break it up like they did with Standard Oil.
Why just Disney? Why not every business? Business-customer relationships should be cordial not abusive in GENERAL.
Stuff like this is why only a handful of companies having their finger in every pie is so scary. Waving arbitration rights by association.
They could have just fought on the fact disney didn't manage the place, instead MASSIVE PR DAMAGE.
Lawyers thought they were being clever and didn't think about their clients reputation
They actually did. That was the point of the first arbitration. To find out that part. But to fight it, someone actually has to look at it first...
They advertised the restaurant on their website as being alergen free and the restaurant is on disney property. That makes it an agent-principal relationship. A gents and principals can get sued for the mistakes of the other.
@@bespokepenguin103 no they didnt... they advertised that restaurants can accommodate allergic people and to discuss with the personnel. No restaurant on earth is allergen free.
The reality is the media will make a huge deal out of anything like this, made a ton of money, and Disney can't control PR to that extent.
This is all irrelevant they could have just used those ground and we can argue that until the cows come home, whatever, the fact is Disney lawyers brought some small print in an online subscription as an argument, that got the head lines that did PR damage and they could have just ignored it and fought it on the cases other merits.
Arbitration is really fun in the case of Scientology. Members sign a contract that requires them to go to arbitration... by Scientologists. Who know very well that anyone who goes against Scientology (e.g. by suing it) becomes labeled as a "suppressive person", and any Scientology member who dares to do anything to help someone like that (e.g. ruling in favor of them) will be thrown out of the church themselves, which in turn means getting cut off from all friends, family and employers who are members or do business with Scientology.
Scenario A: Restaurant defends its case from the plaintiff, and is ruled not at fault. Disney's liability is reduced to "typographical" considerations, which may arguably fall under the "Terms and Conditions" arbitration clause.
Scenario B: Restaurant loses its case against the plaintiff, and is summarily held at fault. Disney's website is deemed to not have "typographical" errors that fall under the arbitration clause, and instead is summarily liable as THE host.
Scenario C: Disney wins that the matter falls entirely under arbitration and the restaurant's liability is reduced to a contract dispute with Disney. All further interactions with the company are then determined to fall within the terms of arbitration of an isolated EULA. Disney becomes Scientology.
As a foreigner the American news are like some dystopian clown show - unimaginable lol
Here in the UK, usually customers can ask for the "allergens book" that restaurants have, so that they can view whether their food is actually safe for them. If I had severe allergies, I wouldn't go by word of mouth. We take allergen training very seriously over here.
Also shame on Disney, and shame on US pharma for their obscene pricing on epi pens.
There are a good amount of places that will list allergens, but the issue becomes if a supplier substitutes a product (not uncommon) that list can no longer be trusted. You still need a person trained on allergens to verify things are safe or not. Ironically, Disney has a reputation for being one of the better ones at this. I will say too, as someone who's been to Disney Springs, it's pretty clear the moment you get there that it isn't run by Disney, and I wouldn't have the same trust in their processes.