Died at Disney; Disney+ Forced Arbitration?

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.

GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

[BatAmerica]

Just a reminder that Congress failed to pass a law stopping these types of terms and conditions. This poor family deserves better.

[kirkhodges]

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.

[pixels_per_minute]

"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.

[qyMC]

"At Disney we make sure suing us effectively and fairly is impossible. Even if your wife died" That's how anyone sees this.

[mariecarie]

Disney has become Ursula—by signing any agreement with them, they take away your voice, your ability to hold them accountable. Poor unfortunate souls!

[arttherapywithamanda]

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.

[Pystro]

"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?

[lavonsmith]

Two take aways:
1. The actual victim did not sign up for Disney+, but rather her husband did, so the arbitration clause should not apply to her and her estate.
2. This is a great reminder to cancel your Disney+ subscription or if you were considering to sign up, don't do it!

[russell]

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.

[thequantaleaper]

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.

[BobfatherGaming]

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.

[_Grumpy_Panda_]

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.

[danielhale]

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.

[AxelQC]

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.

[yurei]

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?

[maxgarcia]

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.

[enderkatze]

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

[chaosmkmk]

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??

[EmeraldPencil]

When I first heard of this story, the person covering it did actually mention both the fact that the restaurant was a regular restaurant that was just located in Disney’s land, and that Disney wasn’t saying that they couldn’t sue them, just that it had to go to a neutral third party rather than a judge, but I still have the same feelings as anyone else who doesn’t know. Disney should have a duty to ensure that the restaurants it allows to be set up on its land are safe and aren’t advertising or claiming to be allergen-free when they’re not, so they should be partially responsible. Also for arbitration, while it claims to be a “neutral” third party, there’s definitely good reason why Disney and other companies would rather that over an actual lawsuit. When a company gets that large, not matter how much they may claim it, they don’t do things out of the kindness of their hearts. There is definitely a reason why they want arbitration, whether is because they’ll get a better outcome if terms of money owed, they manage to take away the “neutral” aspect of it, or even making sure none of it comes to public light.

[EthelJung-jw]

All that negative attention for an argument that would’ve been dismissed anyways