![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sure, but trying to move the case to Arbitration for a Disney+ (trial) sub is also some weapons grade bullshit.
![Zarathustra[H]](/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1723407683){kind=avatar}
I think it is .. Disney + is a streaming service (tech) and the gist of the story is a EULA which is definitely a topic in tech certainly.
They don't. Some of it is like a mall and they just lease the space.
not rage bait, its important tech news...
Wrongful death due to a restaurant mishandling an allergen is hardly frivolous.
Well if get burned by a McDonalds coffee... do you sue the specific owner of that McDonalds. Or do you actually Sue McDonalds. (the answer is you sue MdDonalds. Not the person who owns the individual franchise you were frequenting)
Disney is using a technicality... not owned or operated by us. Ya ok. I guess they should just contract all their employees then should a Disney policy followed by those contractors result in harm or death... they are absolved of any wrong doing. Hey wasn't us we just contract that work. Disney is on the hook on this one. I assume this motion gets the toss it deserves, and at some point before this goes all the way Disney settles. I am actually surprised they didn't settle right away, must be hard times at Disney... in the past they paid these sorts of things out before they got anywhere close to bad PR from stupid legal arguments.
Isn't that because McD mandated the serving temperature to the franchisees? I can't find if the suit was originally filed against McD and the franchisee.
I think that if the restaurant is just a tenant, and Disney doesn't control the menu or operations, then that would be like suing the mall where a restaurant is operating because they screwed up.
I was pretty sure the McD coffee suit was aimed only at McD corp, I don't know though it may have been aimed at both.
Right, so if Disney sets a standard that includes being aware of allergy requests and the tenant franchise fails through negligence, how is Disney at fault? Again, IANAL, so I'm trying to understand.I was pretty sure the McD coffee suit was aimed only at McD corp, I don't know though it may have been aimed at both.
With Disney in this case though Disney is not acting like a Mall. Disney owns all the IP for those restaurants even if they are not operating them directly. Its a special franchise like arrangement. Disney takes care of all accounting and the like themselves. These restaurants in question are included in Disney meal packages and so on. Guests at Disney have no obvious way of knowing this is Disney this is not Disney but it is. The consumer experience is supposed to be the same and Disney has standards for these franchisees. They are a special class of franchise. Its my understanding Disney directly operates most of them... but some of the higher end restaurants like the Paris one are a special class of franchise. They still abide by Disney standard. Its not like Disney is renting the space to anyone that can make the rent. If they close... a taco bell isn't going to move in next week.
Its not a tenet agreement that is the thing. Disney is going to have to argue in court that these restaurants are not just them. I don't think they can actually make that argument and win. Disney sets their hours, Disney does their accounting, Disney at least in part does some of their hiring, Disney sets their policy. How again are these not just Disney restaurants? I don't think Disney can win this one.
No idea why they dragged disney+ into this. Food/restaurant is not part of the service offered by Disney+
It also made it almost impossible for them to now claim they have no responsibility.... as they just argued their responsibility is solved in arbitration. There by admitting they have some responsibility. Ya its a very very odd play. I always thought Disney had top notch legal teams, this calls that into question. lol
I think they fully expect it to work, if they didn't then why take the inevitable PR hit from it? Surely they accounted for the PR ramifications?!
This is why I love that Disney did this. Maybe, just MAYBE, it gets so much attention that laws get put into place to prevent this sort of crap in the future. I mean hell I use the Google Play store for my phone, and I obviously I had to agree to their terms to use it, but if an AI created by an offshoot company the Alphabet corporation owns ends up launching a missile which kills my family I sure as fuck don't want them to be able to roll it back to "hey you agreed to the terms when you decided to install that app from our store, and that applies to everywhere".
that first part bugs me "upon information and belief..." maybe I'm not up on my legalese but this doesn't sound particularly concrete. I know Disney employees do not work at the Lego stores in any of the park properties, and I'm a firm believer that they don't work in any non-Disney owned businesses in their "mall" areas of the park, maybe they are employees if they work in Starbucks that is inside the park proper, but outside I don't think they are. Now they very well may need to be background checked and that's by Disney, and perhaps there is a level of "training" in the form of Disney telling said 3rd parties what their policies and procedures are. But all of that is a far cry from saying these are Disney employees or even Disney trained employees, but the lawyer most definitely is going to push for that. But I don't think Disney should be in any way responsible for this in the same way I don't think a state/county is responsible for a restaurant doing the same thing even though there are state and county rules that they give to restaurants on how things must be done. As I said above, the more important thing to everyone other than the family of the woman who died (and her husband's lawyer) is how overreaching the EULA is being applied.
Now I'm kind of wondering what is the EULA behind downloading "free" games from EGS.
I agree on the face of it.
Disney prevented a grieving father from putting an image of Spiderman on his 4 yo son's gravestone. They don't give a fuck about publicity.
While the way they try to force is stupid, them trying to force it is not stupid because arbitration presumably will have an arbitrator that they use will have considerably more rationale and logic than 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Plus there is the fact that Disney has definitely made some enemies, especially in the state of Florida, it wouldn't surprise me if there's a healthy population that if put on a jury against Disney would do whatever they can to make Disney pay including but not limited to lying about their feelings of Disney if asked under oath when lawyers are interviewing jurors. This has absolutely nothing to do with them feeling like they have some legal responsibility, it's about them knowing they could pay through the teeth regardless of if it's their fault or not.
No it’s brilliant, it will tie up the proceedings for months if not years while the courts work through what is an obvious over reach of the EULA. It ends up in the same place but adds so much paperwork to the process.