If You Can't Stand the Heat, Watch for Allergens

As you may have heard on the news, the Evil Empire Klingons Sauron Yoyodyne Disney has backed away from its claim that signing up for a trial membership in Disney Plus does not mean that the plaintiff will have to use binding arbitration in a case where they killed a doctor.

Short version, at a Disney resort, a doctor was exposed to allergens that killed her, despite her repeatedly making clear to the restaurant staff that she had these issues and the staff's assurance that the food would be allergen free.

Disney claimed that the trial should be held under binding arbitration because the doctor's husband signed up for a trial membership to Disney Plus.

Disney said it is abandoning its motion to compel arbitration in a case filed by a man who alleges his wife died from anaphylaxis after a restaurant at a Disney complex failed to honor requests for allergen-free food.

Disney's motion to compel arbitration controversially cited the Disney+ streaming service's subscriber agreement, which includes a binding arbitration clause. The plaintiff's lawyer called the argument "absurd."

Disney confirmed this week that it will withdraw the motion, which it filed on May 31.

"At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations," Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D'Amaro said in a statement provided to Ars today. "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. As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."

Translation, "We had no idea that this would blow up and go viral." 

This is, after all, the company that bought a number of works from publishers and republished them while refusing to pay royalties  to the authors, because they claimed that they had just bought the publication rights, and not the responsibility to pay royalties. (See here)

Piccolo's lawyer, Brian Denney, wrote in a court filing that "there is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, the only Agreement Mr. Piccolo allegedly assented to in creating his Disney+ account, which would support the notion that he was agreeing on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort from which she died. Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd. Indeed, the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was only between Mr. Piccolo and Disney+, not WDPR [Walt Disney Parks and Resorts] or any other Disney Affiliates."

Denney provided Ars with a statement today. "Although Disney has withdrawn its motion, the arbitration clauses they relied upon in their motion still exist on their various platforms (i.e. streaming services; entrance tickets to Disney's parks, etc.). This potentially puts other people injured by Disney's negligence at risk of facing a similar legal challenge," Denney said. "The right to a jury trial as set forth in the seventh amendment is a bedrock of our judicial system and should be protected and preserved. Attempts by corporations like Disney to avoid jury trials should be looked at with skepticism."

………

The lawsuit said Disney owns the premises where the restaurant is located and alleged that "Disney had control and/or right of control over the menu of food offered, the hiring and/or training of the wait staff, and the policies and procedures as it pertains to food allergies at Disney Springs restaurants, such as Raglan Road."

Disney's attempt to move the case into a confidential setting backfired as the company faced a deluge of criticism, Jamie Cartwright, an attorney who is not involved in the lawsuit, told the BBC. "In attempting to push the claim into a confidential setting on what were very tenuous grounds, it succeeded only in creating the very publicity and attention it likely wanted to avoid," he said.

Oh, the poor babies.  They wanted to avoid a PR fiasco, and in so doing got one.

I do not know if the case against Disney has any merit. that is a relatively complex issue for the trial, but the attempt to enforce arbitration over because of a clickwrap agreement for a streaming service certianly falls under the category of, "Shocks the conscience."

More significantly, this is yet another example of how This is perhaps the best argument for piracy this century.

Why should you pay Disney, or Amazon, or Netflix, or HBO/MAX, or Hulu, or Peacock, or Apple, or anyone when the net result is that you are abused by the company and receive an inferior product? (Things like being unable to get HD on your laptop, reneging on the product being ad-free, and the Disney case of forcing you into arbitration on completely different products)

It's not difficult for content distributors to minimize privacy, they just have to produce products that are better than pirating content. which is a pain in the ass.

Of course, they don't do that.  They don't care.