Okay look, we all know the app is shite, but is anyone getting this on the web:
3 Likes
That’s just a sickening level of corporate bullying bullshit. I sincerely hope any decent arbitrator with any kind of human decency sees right through this nonsense.
2 Likes
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” he said in the Monday night statement. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”
In other words, “we got universal slammed for being utter scumbags and we’re now trying to save face”.
2 Likes
Well they did cancel the acolyte… 
2 Likes
Turns out, though, that if you dig into the story, Mickey and friends aren’t all that wrong… the headlines were pulled completely out of context for the ragebait clicks.
From a very informative reddit post:
- Disney doesn’t own the restaurant. It’s independently owned. Disney is just the landlord, and it’s outside of the parks.
- Disney didn’t contaminate the food
- Disney isn’t saying they can get away with killing people because of Disney+
- The husband signed up for a trial for Disney+ in 2019, and that’s when he created the account that he then used in 2023 to purchase the park tickets. In both instances he agreed to arbitration.
- The husband is arguing Disney is liable because they list the restaurant as an allergy free option on their trip planning website site. The same website he purchased the tickets on and agreed to arbitration.
- So, Disney is arguing that because his claims arise out of the use of the website, then the website terms, that he explicitly agreed to when bought the tickets, apply to the claim and should be arbitrated.
- Disney’s main reason for bringing up Disney+ is that it was when the account was created to show that he had multiple opportunities to read the terms (though it doesn’t actually matter if he read them).
- This all came out because clearly the plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure, because he knows their claim against Disney is bullshit.
The guy is trying to sue Disney for something that they have nothing to do with. He believes that he can do so, because of T&C’s, but he really can’t. Because Disney has nothing to do with this. Disney pointed out that said T&C’s says arbitration. Goose, meet gander. Fin.
3 Likes
That does shine a different light on the story. So now we have to deal with clickbaiting lawyers on top of all the other kak online.
Thanks for the detailed updated, appreciated! Disney doesn’t suck so much anymore. 
3 Likes
Yes they do 
1 Like
Interesting. It really is good practice to read things online with caution keeping in mind that there’s two sides to the story and not get caught up in the outrage culture.
4 Likes
But sometimes you just want to be outraged 
5 Likes
Yeah, we’ve got plenty of other reasons. Just not the arbitration thing. This time.
4 Likes
Agreed. Though that won’t stop me for rootin’ for the guy filing the lawsuit.
3 Likes
Yeah, context is so critical. Disney wanted to force arbitration rather than lawsuit, for various reasons.
1 Like