Disney Tanking its Reputation?! 

Disney’s reputation nose dived over 3 years ago. The moral is never sign anything from Disney but the best thing to do is boycott Disney period

Disney have already wrecked their reputation, this just further tanks it.

50K must be the lowest amount Ive ever seen for the US regards suing anyone

What reputation? That reputation is long gone.

Disney is a corporate entity and not run by humans with any feelings IMO.

Steve Lehto did an amazing run through on this. The PR damage, versus an NDA and a payout, is absolutely mental.

This is appalling by Disney. Their lawyers are using the T&Cs from an old disney+ trial subscription to attempt to avoid liability in a case that could have enormous implications for any subscription holder if they win their dismissal.

It is unreasonable and unfair for a streaming service clause to protect Disney from all court action completely outside that service.

Wow, just when I thought I couldn’t be more annoyed and disgusted by Disney.

If they genuinely believe they have no liability then they should have just gone to court and let it be judged that way and company name cleared and on record, rather than what they have done.

The answer to the question "can you guarantee there won't be any allergens?" is "no". Not unless you have a seperate chef in a separate kitchen, specially trained and following an extremely vigorous checklist. Without that, a contamination is statistically inevitable.

In the U.S., unconscionable terms are not enforceable. If Disney is not involved in the restaurant's business, then how does Disney sever its Disney Plus ties to the restaurant?

This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard! A free trial of Disney plus requires what was effectively negligent manslaughter to go to arbitration?

Disney should have instead just taken the $50,000 pay off and just not look ridiculous and downright crazy about their TOS and avoid bringing light to their terrible TOS. I do wonder if Disney has run out of money to afford high quality Lawyers or their good lawyers ran off to other companies.

I expect that the PR damage control will cost far more than $50,000. Normally a big player like this would pay this with some sort of onerous Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Legal ramifications aside, the Disney Company’s best and most ethical argument should be simply pursuing the line that they don’t own or operate the restaurant. The company already has a tarnished public reputation from pursuing gender politics. I’d argue that, from an operational point of view, they could without more reputational damage on top. The widower is suing for $50,000, which is not an unreasonable sum given the state of US litigation. The sensible option here would be to settle the case, because if they continue with this Disney+ EULA rugpull defence, well , you’re going to lose more than $50,000 from cancelled subscriptions, park memberships, and general business. This just goes to show; your legal representative may be a genius with the letter of the law … but deficient in public relations … and reality.

This is hardly shocking. It's disney.

wow a coperation dodging responsibility..... is that even a story? the politics that allow it are the real story

*Financial planning is like navigation. If you know where you are and where you want to go, navigation isn't such a great problem. It's when you don't know the two points that it's difficult* ...

Holy cow.... Even the suggestion that a TV Streaming subscription should prevent a court case from going ahead, should one be necessary, is the most ridiculous idea ever. I hope that a judge will have something scathing to say about this.

That clause was intended to deal with disputes relating to Disney + purchased through or bundled into cable packages.

Disney a proper Mickey mouse organisation.😂

They ok pissing down millions and millions for awful remakes and terrible shows and they cant compensate that poor man? Anyone who supports Disney after this should be ashamed

Dismal Disney plumbing new depths of depravity

They should amend the filing against Disney to 100 million and take it to a jury. Disney is widely hated and needs to be taken down.

Are Disney paying more in legal fees than the damages claimed?

Disney still say that is a clause in the Disney Plus agreement. They didn’t deny it. Therefore, they are barring 150, million subscribers from wrongful death suits. It’s not unfair to think that is scummy and Disney has deserved the tanking of the reputation with this.

No company can sign your rights away, surely, no matter what you've signed?

Anyone surprised by this behavior doesn't know enough about their history, as crazy as this attempted defence, this is business as usual for the house of mouse.

you just wouldn't eat out if eating out may kill you. I wouldn't anyway..

If I was allergic to dairy and nuts I would never eat out unless I could bring my own food and cutlery

IMO Disney no longer cares about their reputation based on the movies they put out, inappropriate theme park antics, major losses on Disney+ streaming & countless lawsuits!

This should be considered legal malpractice. Trying to pull out this defense is an insult to the courts and the plaintiffs, and a disservice to their client

What one would expect from That Corporation

The biggest news here is the concept that Disney had a reputation to lose. They've always been loathed throughout my life and with good reason.

Hang on, they are fighting a 50k compensation claim and yet are spending more than that a day on lawyers fees? Jesus wept. Sue them for $500,000,000

The response from Disney is very shocking indeed. Now, if I was to play the advocate’s devil, I would say that when someone has such a severe allergy to different foods and knows it, they would try to avoid eating in a low-class low-quality restaurant knowing they could risk their own life. They should bring their own food with them. They would be very naïve and inconsiderate to only rely on a waitress word as to make sure there’s nothing potentially fatal with the ”food” they eat. This said, someone has to bear some responsibility for this, and it still seems to me it should not be that poor man, who already paid the ultimate price. Insurances were not made for nothing.

I feel this will go badly for them and cost them way more than 50k. Absolutely astounding.

I have no legal credentials but it seems to me one of the biggest differences between UK and US law is in UK a court will usually judge on the basis of what could reasonably be expected by a reasonable person, whereas in the US it is more about technicalities and fine print. So in America, the elaborate machiavellian legalese carefully crafted into lawyer generated T&Cs will make or break a claim. Over, here on the other hand a judge is more likely to say “No matter what it says, this is purposely un-reasonable and I am not having it”. That’s how I think most of these compensatory claims pan out.

I’m more shocked anyone thinks Disney has a good reputation to be jeopardized… But it’s nice to know I should never do any business with any Disney holding. I can’t wait until they start claiming that having ever watched a Disney movie in the past.

According to Steve Lehto, the $50k amount is a minimum for it and that it's an amount more than that, just that the 50k is to determine which courts hear it there and maximum awards. As another thing, one point that ties into things like this is some of what Disney has been marketing itself as for decades now...they've had a major thing of making statements that they will take allergies seriously and make sure to have things available and safe at their locations. I know several people with severe allergy and intolerance issues along with similar things with special medical diets who will spend a lot of money on Disney vacations because of that advertising and reputation, and they've been trying to find other places due to this case popping up. And Disney Springs, while being a shopping thing, is still something that is heavily managed by Disney itself with everything there...

When I was a student, I worked as a temporary postman - to cover the Christmas deluge. To do this, I had to sign The Official Secrets Act. Apparently, I am still bound by its conditions.

I’ll donate £80 (cost of my cancelled Disney + subscription) to help his legal fees

$50,000 is peanuts to Disney, especially considering this lady was a doctor, if I recall correctly. Her life is arguably worth far more.

I'm not being funny, but if l suffered from serious allergies like that, I just wouldn't eat outside anywhere! Just saying.

I heard about this case. I was at that pub in Disney Springs last October...A great Irish pub...but so busy inside!! Disney Springs is just a free, large open air shopping Mall really with loads of shops and restaurants and bars etc !! I do believe the restaurant/pub should take responsibility and not Disney...!!

Why on Earth do Disney think their leading argument for dismissal is the T&C of Disney+ is superior over them having no responsibility for the operating of the restaurant?...Also, 50K is probably pennies to Disney. A man lost his life. I think that the family deserve to have their case heard by a jury of peers.

Then 150 million Disney + subscribers should cancel the subscription.... Disney would then pay up in the blink of an eye. 50,000 $ is nothing to them.

One question I would have is who is responsible for health and safety at this restaurant. In the UK the local council is responsible for all restaurants, even if its on "private" land (for example restaurants at Alton Towers). IF Disney was responsible for health and safety then I can understand them being named in the law suit.

$50k is JUST a jurisdictional amount. It is not what they are seeking. What that means is that their claim is worth “at least” $50k. That is all you have to put in the pleading… I am a litigator here in the US.

Surely Disney's lawers would have pointed out and advised Disney that they were not liable if they don't operate the restaurant?

Wow this story is going to cost disney a hell of alot more than 50k does anyone actually read the terms and conditions when signing up for a streaming site

I'd say that the restaurant is at fault here, but Disney haven't done themselves any favours either. Theme park visitors might get the impression that Disney runs the restaurants and shops on site as well, unless there's clearly visible signage to the contrary.

if a news report claims that a man cannot sue because he took out a Disney + subscription, would that count as misinformation?

In the US of then you sue because the medical bills are so high that you have no choice. You file a lawsuit knowing that it will take 10+ years to finalize. When the hospital/insurance company knows it will take so long, they will reduce the bill.

I wonder why Disney isn't turning to a settlement that pays the $50,0000 but stipulates no admission of guilt or wrongdoing. That amount is less than their legal costs much less the dreadful publicity.

U.S. juries can be wildly generous in damage awards. It would pay to get this case in front of a jury. Preferably a jury full of orphans.

I thought Disney had a duty to make sure and enforce that all business operating in their resorts operated safely with the minimum of risks to anyone, with any failure in that duty causing harm and possible death would make them liable.

Disney no longer has any reputation to protect.

Given the current financial state of Disney the payout will probably bankrupt them.🤣

If you know South Park you know they saw this coming in some ways and it's unbelievable. I hope governments will address this issue.

What reputation ? Disney hasn't had a good reputation for decades.

Sign of poor management when you let the lawyers speak for the company without checking in with HR and PR first.

Why would you eat out if you're so susceptible to extreme reactions to basic food?

its a resturant on the Disney park which Disney is there for affiliated with as they have granted permission to run said resturant on said park site Disney might not run it but they're indeed partnered and affiliated with said resturant and will profit from it as a result they want 0 liability when it is there responsibility to ensure their guests are safe this includes throughout investigation into partners on the park like said resturant so this is complete bullshit.

First time I've heard about this. The thing that struck me about this recap is that Disney are saying that because the Man signed up to a Disney plus account they cant be sued and have to go to arbitration. But they also seem to be saying that they dont have any responsibility or liability for the restaurant and food supplied. Taken together, this would seem to say that even though they have no responsibility they are nonetheless insisting the resolution of this case should be by arbitration and not through the court. Makes you wonder what else they have no responsibility for they would like resolved by arbitration because somebody signed up to Disney Plus.

Disney+ is already struggling as it is, this strange petty argument is just another nail in the coffin.

Not sure why Disney didn't just say "It's not our problem as the land lord, talk to the franchise owner"

$50k is the minimum to get a jury trial where you may then get awarded millions

You can't damage Disney, they are doing that extremely well on their own.

All it takes is for the waiter to pick up the wrong plate. Bring your own food in this instance.

If Disney isn't involved with this restaurant, wouldn't the restaurant customers need access?

On the reputational front, $50K is peanuts

Disney has no reputation, they lost that a long ago...

When I get a print out for a holiday from the travel agent, they always send a printout of JET2's T & Cs. t is eight 8 A4 sides of exceptionally small type and would take a full day or more to read. Maybe some where in there there is a clause which says "You promise never to sue us". That's what this is.

If Disney really thought they had zero liability in a restaurant on its website and premises, they would allow this to go to court (or better yet, just give the guy a boatload of money and kept it quiet)!!

The $50K was so to ensure the case is heard in the correct court. If we put it into a UK perspective it's the difference between shoplifting for good with a value of £249.99 which would go to a magistrates court, compared to shoplifting good worth £250 which would go to a crown court (I might be out by a penny). Similar to how the Crown and Magistrates courts are split here in America if you ask for less then you are in a court which cannot grant unlimited awards. From more american centred channels the suit was for a MINIMUM of $50k with the award being larger at the courts discretion. Again this is "Normal" for how these sort of cases operate in America

They tanked their reputation as logical thinkers by building Eurodisney in an absolutely absurd location, PARIS. It should have been anywhere in Spain, the weather is 365 days a year, the people are more polite than Parisiens, The accomodation and labour are cheaper and Paris is a ludicrous choice.

Raglan Road is not a Disney operated dining room. They are just the landlord. Also if you were to look at the menu on the Disney site… “Guests must speak to a cast member about their allergy-friendly request. While we take steps to help mitigate cross-contact, we cannot guarantee that any item is completely free of allergens. Our allergy-friendly recipes may use highly refined oils, such as soybean oil, and/or ingredients that are processed in facilities that also process allergens. It is ultimately our Guests' discretion to make an informed choice based upon their individual dietary needs. For more information about allergy-friendly requests, ask to speak with a Special Diets Trained Cast Member upon arrival at the location.”

Oh, Disney’s reputation tanked a decade ago. Walt would weep if he could see what’s happened to his dream.

The same Disney that was "disappointed at Scar-Lo for suing for her rightful wages during a time of economical struggle" while simultaneously closing all of their stores in the UK and firing everyone

In the US there is a concept known as due notice, so terms and conditions that are not obvious to the consumer that they opt into are not valid.

The entire online ecosystem uses unfair and unreasonable terms and conditions “agreements”. They are ludicrously long and virtually unreadable and I believe nobody reads them. As for Disney, it’s been straight downhill since Walt died.

$50k to Disney would be like 2 cents in my bank account. Foolish decision by the unrecognisable Walt Disney company when I was young. He would be turning in his grave, I'm sure.

Brilliant! Thanks Dan.

If I had a condition that could kill me, there's no way I'd be trusting anyone making my food.

One of the best lawyers in America is Robert Barnes. He does a lot of High Profile cases, Children's Health Defence with Robert Kennedy Jr, the Brook Jackson case against Phizer, Amos Miller Food Freedom in Pennsylvania. He advises J D Vance and is excellent on Constitutional Law and Election Law, the real deal

From my understanding the restaurant was within the theme park, I.e. could not be accessed without a ticket to the park. To an ordinary customer there would be no way to know it was not owned and operated by Disney. Would that not give raise to a duty of care?

The damage Disney has done to itself by defending this case is vastly greater than they would have incurred by paying up and making a sincere public apology. However, I would point out that the $50K figure is the MINIMUM amount used to determine where the case would be heard.

$50K was a minimum settlement sought.

It would be cheaper to settle the dispute if you taking the lawyers fees are going to be taken up

Headline should be - "Giant, monolithic corporation scores massive own goal: potential income lost in the millions, over $50 000 claim."

“Legal mindset” is an American lawyer who specializes in theme park law…particularly Disney. I forgot about him till now, let’s see what he has to say

Disney doesn’t have much of a reputation left to tank…IMO…

Thank you for taking a look into this as I was one of the people who e-mailed you about it. The story is FAR more complex than the reporting I'd heard as most only mentioned the Disney+ subscription angle. However, this will do even MORE damage to Disney and given all of the other issues they are facing at the moment there will soon be a straw that'll break the camels back?

It does sound like they’re using a tactic to increase the cost of the lawsuit for the family. It was something my local council used to do if they ever got sued their solicitors would make up another lawsuit regardless of how ridiculous it was just to double the costs of the person suing them . Disney basically have lawyers on payroll so it’s not costing them any extra to make defending this more expensive for the family and basically win through money

In the US it’s generally the Golden Rule. He with most Gold wins. They can hire more lawyers. Run you out of money paying your own lawyer. Run the case out 4-10 years. Etc etc

I'm no expert, but it strikes me that; if Disney are saying that the restaurant is simply an independent business which happens to lease its premises from Disney, but have no other connection to them: surely any terms and/or conditions contained in a "Disney plus" contract cannot apply. If I contract food poisoning at, say, a Burger King outlet; the responsibility lies with the outlet and not Burger King, who simply supplied the franchise. Nust my thoughts...

I feel sorry for the family's loss, but if I had such severe allergies I would be prepping my own meals and taking them with me. If a restaurant or other business doesn't like it, then I would just take my business elsewhere and make damn sure as many people as possible knew the reason

Disney seem to have lost the plot generally in recent years.