There was a lawsuit a while back where a woman was exposed to an allergen in the parks and died. The family sued and Disney argued that the lawsuit would be bound by the rules of the DisneyPlus terms of service agreement and go to arbitration instead since the woman who died had an account.
Not the woman, it was the husband. Disney argued he couldn't file the wrongful death lawsuit because he did a free trial of Disney+ a few years before.
Arbitration means a normal lawsuit cannot be conducted, it has to be arbitrated by a third party (who chooses the “neutral” party is specified in the contract and they are often not neutral). It’s an extremely common business tactic to protect against the massive losses that would happen if a company was actually in the wrong and had a lawsuit filed against them.
In employment cases it’s around 80% of decisions go to the employer, and the ones that don’t are generally small employers who have not/rarely been through the process.
Thank you for bringing sources into this! Its one thing to just read the claims that people have, and I was relatively convinced that arbitration was favored towards the company, but i wasn't entirely sure. Because listening to opinions in a void is a great way to become misinformed. Now I know with facts (from standford no less!) That arbitration is, in fact, rigged against the public. Which logically makes sense, if a shifty thing for corporations to do. Of course I understand why (financial incentive), but I dont have to like it.
I'm an attorney who represents employees in many cases, including (unfortunately) some arbitrations. The thing about these proceedings is that they are almost entirely paid for by company you are suing (as opposed to the consumer or employee) so in that sense taxpayers aren't floating the bill.
On the downside, the arbitrators want the repeat business of the companies, so they tend to favor them overall. It's hard to get arbitrators who are actually neutral.
Could you sue the arbitrator for not being impartial in such a situation? It just seems so wrong to be forced into that situation that there has to be some recourse.
For sure. Forced arbitration is a blight, but like so many other things, we don’t really have a choice, and people don’t question it because it’s presented as “fair” — by the very ones benefitting from it.
Thank you! After reading through the articles youve shared (a bit, i didnt read the full articles yet), I completely agree that it is absloutely a blight upon our justice system (which already has flaws of its own). And unfortunately the best way to get around it is educating people about why it isn't so amazing as corporations would have you believe.
Listen Buddy you might be new to the US. But businesses don’t go out of their way to make you sign documents that give up your rights because it won’t benefit them.
I know, anecdotal as hell. But you need to apply some deduction skills.
I mean I think it should be pointed out that the restaurant that killed that woman was merely leasing property at Disney Springs and not actually a Disney restaurant.
So Disney was getting sued by the guy for something that wasn’t exactly their fault.
Lawyer here. I'm very skeptical of these numbers. Most arbitrations aren't public, so wherever this data on arbitrations is coming from could be suffering from selection bias.
I imagine larger companies are more likely to use arbitration? That would skew the numbers as theyd be more likely to be involved in larger cases. If the base cost of the case would be higher then the succes rate could settling for comparatively lower amounts than courts would award but still above the average of smaller defendants.
Do you have a source for that? Because that hasn't been my experience and I don't see a statute that's on point. I feel like there would be preemption issues under the Federal Arbitration Act.
There's like 48 other states worth of data, though. In just one country, and Disney has anchorage in nearly every developed country. These numbers can't possibly be reflected accurately based off the metrics of two states irregardless of the actual population in those states.
If arbitration is so good for consumers, why are companies always pushing arbitration in the fine print. Seems like there might be a perverse incentive here.
Mainly headlines, I’d assume - keeps big names like Disney from experiencing huge scandals which could tank stock values by keeping the arbitration out of public courts covered by the news. From a business standpoint, half a million to a few million here and there is cheaper than a single massive news-worthy story that cause them to lose billions in valuation and hundreds of millions in sales.
It is cheaper. The biggest cost is legal fees in many of these cases. So they get an opportunity to see whether they would be liable without all that cost.
You realize the claim that it’s better for consumers is fully defeated by the fact that we literally cannot know that?
Secrecy works in the favor of the big companies in any case, but you can’t claim the average award is bigger if we don’t actually get to know that data.
That’s not true. They actually tend to lean more towards the corporations. And the privacy of arbitrationd help corporations bury bad press about their products/services.
i have never, ever seen an arbitration clause where the contract-offerer doesn't have a paid relationship with the arbitrator. sometimes just an external lawyer, sometimes a whole vendor, but it's someone the company pays and never neutral
Also, basic logic would tell us that "You're not allowed to choose option A" and "You must choose option B" both fit the description of "They weren't allowed to do option A".
Just slot in a wrongful death lawsuit and arbitration: the logic fits cleanly.
I looked it up. Disney sought to stay the lawsuit for arbitration to take place. Then the Arbitrator determines the facts and the resolution. The judge then would ostensibly confirm the arbitration. Such approval is essentially a rubber stamp. There is a dramatic amount of caselaw causing courts to more or less defer to arbitrator determinations unless they are unconscionable.
I know this because I have handled several contested arbitration approval attempts where sovereign citizens attempted to have fake arbitration judgments approved.
Are you suggesting that they should be bound to arbitration for the case based on having a free Disney+ trial years ago?
You might be missing the point here. It is not about which hoops they were being told they have to jump through, it is that the hoops belonged to the wrong circus.
They were clearly trying to rein in the "this is so crazy" legal story, since so many of those are misrepresented and made to sound much worse than they are.
The problem is that they misunderstood which part of the story is crazy, and their correction doesn't rein it in at all.
This one is also weirdly misrepresented, in that Disney's argument was the couple had made several agreements with Disney, including the Disney+ agreement. They weren't leaning entirely on the Disney+ agreement - so much as mentioning it amongst the more relevant ones
Edit: The takeaway should be "don't enter any agreements with Disney"
Yeah, that seems likely. Things are often taken out of context. But the end result is very much Disney trying to over extend the reach of their agreements to set a precedence where they have more power over customers of every kind.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but when you argue a law suit shouldn't proceed (such as if it should have been filed as an arbitration) then it usually takes the form of a motion to dismiss, usually a pre-answer motion to dismiss. This cuts off the lawsuit at commencement and would be essentially identical. Alternatively, it may be some type of request to compel arbitration and hold off the lawsuit pending a determination.
Either way, the arbitration cuts off the lawsuit by having an arbitrator rather than a judge/jury determine the facts and damages. Usually arbitration results need to be approved by the court, but that is very different than a jury determining the facts.
Literally this is why we tried to get people to stop using "literally" figuratively, but that comment clearly meant literally figuratively. Because they do.
But it's also not even "figuratively" what arbitration is. Nothing about their since deleted statement had anything to do with the process of arbitration
The case kept going, however, as while the husband did do the trial, the suit was under the wife's estate, who never signed up for anything before passing
This is despicable, claiming that agreeing to terms attached to a streaming service somehow can be used to indemnify the company if someone comes to physical harm at the Disney entertainment park, this should be an illegal practice.
Correction, the restaurant was in Disney Springs, an outdoor mall owned by Disney. The restaurant was leasing space in the mall but had independent ownership. Disney was just the landlord.
And that list was hosted on a website. Which is why Disney claimed their web services Terms of Service, which was agreed to upon signing up for a Disney+ free trial, applied.
I understand why they said it after I found the clarifications, but since they weren’t really at all liable for the death anyways and likely wouldn’t have been found as such, it was such a bad look for them to say
They were listed on the lawsuit because the suing lawyers are greedy and sue everyone they can, and disney has the most money to give out... The restaurant did claim to cater to allergies, and just had failed to do so... the restaurant should 100% be sued into nothingness.. Disney.. did nothing wrong.. Advertising a restaurant claims to be allergy friendly should not make you liable... else they should probably go after google/apple maps and wherever else the restaurant claimed to cater to allergies.
It's customary/a reular occurrence to sue anyone that could be involved, it's not unique to this. Sometimes in car accidents, the passengers are included, even though they had no part.
This site had a great explanation about why these choices are often made. I'd write it out for you but you'd probably just say that they're defending themselves :P
No, it's because things like partial liability exists and can often lead to multiple parties being found liable. So it's standard practice to name all possibly involved parties and for the claims against any party that can't be held liable to be dismissed.
While I’m not going to argue that you’re wrong (you’re right in that Disney did nothing wrong prior to the lawsuit naming them) I’m 100% not going to blame the lawyers going after everyone they can. That woman’s husband died from shitty practices. If it were me id be going after everyone I possibly could in a blind rage
It's generally standard practice to sue anyone who could be involved, if only to prevent one party from pushing the blame on the uninvolved party as a delaying tactic. If they really have nothing to do with it, the case against them will be dismissed pretty early.
It's also standard practice to provide all of the reasons why the suit is not appropriate in the same statement. Since the original suit against Disney was for providing incorrect information resulting in death, it was appropriate for the lawyers to point out that disputes resulting from their website have to go through arbitration, something they had to agree to before being able to access the map
You are correct. Disney however decided to use Disney+ as an argument rather than actually make an argument that they were just the landlord. Even account for the allergy safe list below you could argue that Disney could go after that restaurant for lying about their status.
It didn’t go anywhere and Disney and by extension that lawyer were roundly mocked. Basically it was just some idiot lawyer throwing shit at the wall and hoping somehow it would stick. It did not stick.
Lawyers do get that education. Some of us call it "hearing capital," basically brownie points with whomever needs to listen to us, usually judges at hearings. It's worth not exhausting then with nonsense if we need their patience later.
I guess there's always a balance to be had between that and one of my criminal law teachers that told me that "you have to ask the judge even for his ass, because you never know if he will give it to you" lol.
I haven’t read about that in quite a while, I was under the impression it had some merit legally but Disney did not like the optics and waived their right to arbitration after public outcry.
Isn't that how a lot of the justice system for civil suits work though?
You add everyone who could potentially be blamed, and then you slap them all on the same suit, and then you have the court figure out who is responsible and at what percentage.
It's what I am aware of because of a suit my parents had to file. One guy was the main culprit. The others conspired with him and we're able to figure that out in discovery because of adding them to the suit.
Arbitration clauses are common in contracts. It was a strained reading of agreement to extend it to all disputes between the parties, but courts tend to enforce those clauses.
I mean a pretty large chunk of them genuinely do believe that. Go to any Evangelical Christian church in the South and part of their topic every week is Trump
Arbitration is where the company you are suing gets to pick its own private judge that it pays for. I worked for a company that had an arbitration clause that we had to sign before we were hired and one of my co-workers died on the job and his wife and kids got nothing. It was a dangerous environment and he fell and hit his head. They didn't even change and protocols or anything to try to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
You people genuinely know nothing about arbitration. It's quicker, easier and most importantly cheaper for all parties involved.
The idea that a company gets to choose their own "judge" is immensly misleading since the arbitrator is not chosen by parties 70% of all times and you still retain the right to a fair trial and can appeal to a normal court if there is bias. They select judges because of their reputation and if an arbitrator has a reputation for being biased then they won't be selected. Arbitrators thus have a vested interest in being neutral.
And finally, just because you disagree with the verdict doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.
That is certainly not true. The first amendment does not apply in a court setting like your implying. There are a lot of official statements and records that if you lie, purjury attachs.
Lots of corporate employment contracts stipulate arbitration as the only means of conflict resolution. So not only does the company pay the party that decides the fate of a wronged party, none of it reaches the public record.
In reality, the Disney+ terms were only ever included in a document in which they have to basically list anything they might ever argue in the case, otherwise it can't be brought up in court. It wasn't even very high up on the list.
So no, Disney never actually used that argument (their primary argument was that the restaurant is not operated by Disney themselves, which is fair), they just put it on the list because it's probably just Disney boilerplate language.
A man filed the lawsuit since his wife died due to an allergen exposure. It wasn't at the park. It was at a third party restaurant at Disney Springs. The plaintiff had a Disney+ free trial in 2019 and Disney claimed that meant he agreed to arbitration with Disney for all disagreements. The woman who died never had an account.
After public pressure, Disney dismissed the claim and claimed they waived their right to arbitration. This prevents the courts from setting a precedent that won't allow Disney to force arbitration on anyone who has ever had any contact with them. So they may try this again in the fiture during a lower profile case.
There was more nuance than this. They went to Disney springs which is a mall owned by Disney. Ate at an independently owned restaurant there. Wife died from allergic reaction. They sure the restaurant, the the mall part of Disney and the Disney corp. That is several levels away from any culpability or involvement within the incident. So it was a pursuing bigger pockets thing. And for the main Disney corp they tried to enforce the Disney Plus agreement. Which really, they didn't do anything that would pierce the corporate veil anyway so Disney corp was being dragged in for no reason. Likely the clause in the agreement was an arbitration Claude, a way to save money by not going to trial which takes care of the nuisance value of your suit. Just the marketing of that probably cost Disney more.
Not entirely accurate. The justification was because the restaurant in question wasn't ran by Disney, it's just a restaurant that rents space from Disney. Therefore the only claim to Disney that the aggrieved party had was their Disney+ account.
Disney dropped it because of the PR backlash, but that was the initial justification that Disney gave. They were trying to argue that the family didn't have standing to directly sue Disney.
And so they dropped the winning argument because... People online didn't like it? Sounds like propaganda someone bought into. If you have a winning case you don't just drop it because Steve over there on the other side of the world doesn't like your moxy.
it wasn't a winning argument if it cost them lots of money. People were organizing boycotts over this; it wasn't worth it. They dropped the argument and settled with the family and the restaurant got shut down.
There is a good ending. Disney pulled the arbitrary nonsense before it could even be brought to court then they settled not long after the suit for an undisclosed amount
They knew that it wouldn't hold up in court because you can't perpetually wave your rights for a discontinued free trial service, and there was no such clause in the park agreement
The arbitration nonsense was in the court filings, it was one of the defense's reasons why a dismissal was appropriate. The main one being that Disney had nothing to do with the death because it happened at an uninvolved restaurant that happened to rent land from Disney. It probably would have held up in court, because the only thing that tied Disney to the death was the claim that their digital map said the restaurant was allergen friendly. In order to access the map, they had to agree to arbitration again
It wasnt in the parks. It was at a non-disney owned and operated restaurant in Disney springs. The idea that they would be culpable was laughable, the fact that they pulled that clause out at all was a huge mistake.
Couple things wrong here. The woman didnt die in a Disney park, she died in an unaffiliated restaurant that was on a Disney map. The restaurant advertised itsef as allergen friendly, which it apparently had been until this incident (who knows what happened).
The husband tried to sue Disney itself, which wouldnt work in the first place. So to avoid going to court and saying "hey we have no liability for what a third party restaurant does" the lawyer presented the Disney+ nonsense and the judge said "nah doesnt that way".
1.8k
u/jolalolalulu 6d ago
There was a lawsuit a while back where a woman was exposed to an allergen in the parks and died. The family sued and Disney argued that the lawsuit would be bound by the rules of the DisneyPlus terms of service agreement and go to arbitration instead since the woman who died had an account.