I was just thinking this too. The constitution grants rights to the citizens of it's country. Can a citizen sign anything with some entity that would supersede these rights? That would mean the contract stands above the constitution.
Can you even consider terms of service a contract? You have no option to say no or adjust/negotiate parts of it soo... it is just a one sided forced agreement in many cases under duress because if you don't accept the terms the TV you just bought is just another paperweight... so technically they are holding the money you spent on the TV hostage...
If Google owned Kraft, and Kraft foods killed a lot of people, you can't sue Kraft for wrongful death because you agreed to the ToS and EULA of Google.
Normally, no, but Big Tech has indeed been consolidating their EULAs and TOSes as umbrella contracts for all products and services, including subsidiaries for the past few years. This case might be the instigator for the courts to finally clamp down on this extremely-abusable behavior…
Different situation. If Disney and the restaurant had completely different names and were 100% separated in IP, that would be comparable. If Google owned Kraft, called it Google Foods, and you got poisoned, you would sue Google. Disney had their name on the restaurant, and as stated in the video that means Disney vets for the restaurant and must take responsibility
Same could probably said for like Mass transit. Who here wouldn't like to be on a high-speed train themed with MIckey Mouse? (Think Japan with the Pikachu content)
No it's in excess of 50k. It's a threshold that's stated in lawsuits where you need to state whether the damages you seek are more or less. There's no limit and if tried in court would be well over 7 figures.
Admission of guilt probably wouldn't be a good outlook and forced arbritation could have worked if they managed to get the husband quiet about it if it wasn't delivered like an insult.
I feel like Disney mainly does it to not just give in, because this may be more expensive for them, but the amount of ppl that would try to sue them if they just gave in immediately would cost them way more than their lawyers.
*I don't know in what world they thought this would result into good PR??!* Do they not realize we already hate their guts for 100 different reasons and we will pick up on this?
@@tonycamp4514 If you're telling me that in their entire legal department there is not one person in charge who at least had the passing thought "hey, if we file these papers will this make our company look bad?" then I don't believe it
This is a clip from Friday, but as of a couple hours ago Disney has made statements going back on their contesting the lawsuit. Basically saying "oops, my bad nevermind"
Its mostly “we are only being sued for a small amount. If the judge strikes down the forced arbitration clause we could be on the hook for a ton more money. Lets just drop it”. I read a comment from a lawyer that the person suing has an uphill battle to prove liability of disney anyways, so why take the risk of forced arbitration going away when theres a small risk of paying a small amount anyways
The argument for "common sense" legislation fell apart recently with the ruling that "boneless" was a style of cooking and not saying that there are no bones in it
The case was not that ridiculous. Decaf coffee does not guarantee there will be 0 caffeine in the coffee. Similarly "boneless" is not a certification that it is completely bone-free. If the dude in the case had horked down simply "deboned" wings without chewing he would still be in the same situation.
@@Legitster Decaffeinated coffee is coffee where the caffeine is reduced, which makes sense. It is not "caffeine free" coffee. Boneless is an actual word that is defined as "without bones" so the description says that it has no bones
Yeah, but if you crack down on that with legislation you're just going to get restaurants with "reduced bone wings". Which doesn't really feel like an improvement.
@@danieljensen2626 I'd prefer that, because if a restaurant and their supply chain can't guarantee that there isn't bones in something I'd want to know because it lets me know they have subpar standards and I don't want to be their customer.
Yeah, but the establishment was on their premises. Disney's guests have a degree of trust they associate with the brand. This couple wouldn't have dined in the establishment if it wasn't located within their premises and advertised as allergen-free.
@@stoves5877 Same point applies; it's still within their premises. If I'm not mistaken, the establishment was advertised as an allergen-free option within Disney Springs.
Forced arbitration agreements are fundamentally unfair and stupid in the first place. To then stretch it so hilariously like Disney is doing is even more absurd
Forced arbitration, AI usage, and user-content-exploitation are the main reasons that all companies have been pushing out "updated terms" emails in the past year.
Imagine if Meta headsets starting blowing up, killing their users through negligence. What percentage of people have signed an agreement with Facebook and have no idea what terms they have agreed?
Parent here. My 8yo son knows some of the Disney IP characters, but he's in no way into them they way we were as kids. Without the unifying drum of broadcast TV (i.e. Sat morning cartoons) every parent shows their kids a different set of streaming media (inc. UA-camrs), so there's a lot of "Oh your kid is into X? Never heard of X" when we talk.
Unironically, arguing this in court should get all lawyers involved disbarred. It's such a clearly bad faith argument and so absolutely evil that it should be punished
@@pafnutiytheartist there's a difference between a bad argument and a disingenuous one. This is such a twisting of the law and bending of what "forced arbitration" means that it is genuinely evil and the people making it are doing something so morally abhorrent they should never work in law again
@@TheLeftistOwl They definitely should be disbarred, morally speaking. What I'm saying is that's not how any of this works in practice and there's not going to be any consequences for the lawyers whatsoever.
8:10 in brazil we have something similar just instead of "common sense" here the law works on "good faith" basically it means that even if you are correct you lose your case because the acussation was made in "bad faith"
For thise saying disney took it back NO THEY DIDNT. They said QUOTE “we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.” SO THEY ARE SAYING THE F**** CLAUSE IS STILL VALID THEY ARE JUST BEING 'SENSITIVE' WTF
16:35 This is the same reason retro video games and sports cars from the 80's/90's sell for so much these days. We were raised with Disney World being like the ultimate vacation, , but the bulk of us never went. So now that we are grown and can actually afford it, we do it.
8:00 You start talking about common sense filters in the legal system. Ideally, this would be the judges' job to filter through this. It's the whole point of why they exist, to be the neutral 3rd party that that runs the court proceedings and to make sure that both sides are fairly treated during the process.
Section 42 - Post-Mortem Contributions: Should the user experience an unexpected software crash of the permanent type (commonly referred to as "kicking the bucket"), the user hereby whimsically agrees to donate their mortal coil to the entity. This contribution shall be used for purposes including, but not limited to, scientific research, haunted house decorations, or as an extremely quiet office intern. Participation in this clause will be considered as the user's last and most generous in-app purchase, and will entitle their spirit to VIP status in the thereafter, which includes skipping any lines at celestial gates and a 20% discount at the afterlife cafeteria.
I have food allergies and went to Disney in 2022. Every single Disney restaurant was very attentive to my allergies, far above and beyond almost every other restaurant I’ve been to. I’m surprised and sad that this happened.
Because negligence of human life is the fastest way to get rich. The evil are the powerful, and it's the governments job to rain them in. It is we the people's job to make sure the powerful in the government aren't evil.
that's not true at all. In Florida when you file you have to state if you are seeking more or less then 50k. They put more then 50k. Also Disney isn't liable they do not own or operate the restaurant.
Journalism is dead these days. All the reporting is garbage. It's not $50,000, that's just a legal threshold, like "vandalism under/over $2,000", like tax-brackets. As others have said, it's in the millions (obviously!) The reporting on it is just poorly done and poorly worded and copy-pasted AI rubbish. Moreover, even if it were only $50,000, settling would set a legal precedent that would open the doors to being sued every other day because of all the other crap that Disney does. Why do you think they did the arbitration-clause in the first place? Settling would nullify that.
Was just about to say the same. The subway figure out who's paying the lawsuit. If you skippe one entity, there argument is going to be nono it's not our fault it's the other entity.
I love our German laws when it comes to forced arbitration agreements. there are straight up not valid unless they are signed, and they have to be explicitly forced arbitration agreements and nothing else in that document (source: wikipedia)
Any restaurant should never give ANY assurances to a customer who is allergic to any ingredient in the kitchen. If it exists, the possibility for accidental cross contamination is too great. These money hungry businesses like Disney just care about making the sale by any means necessary even if it means giving empty promises or assurances. If there are nuts in the kitchen, do not attempt to prepare food for ANYONE with a nut allergy. I know this would mean potential 'discrimination' to those with an allergy, but it's just not worth the liability of serving them from a kitchen where their serious allergen is present.
This is why the only correct way to watch Disney movies and shows is on the High Seas. Do not give them a penny of your money until they stop actively trying to be the worst company on the planet.
You're still paying for it with your time, with your life. The best way is to take some OCD meds to treat the FOMO and just skip it altogether and do something you'll actually enjoy with your limited time on Earth.
@@light-masterI mean, you don't have to show Disney movies to your kids. Or Disney anything really, there's never been more options of entertaining stuff for child entertainment.
he is only suing for 50k! his wife died! he should of sued for millions! Disney is fucking stupid this is 50 thousand they should of paid it to quietly settle with this guy. There lawyers probably billed 50,000 the first day of this suit.
Talking about cereal, it reminds me of when my mother was looking at baby food for my baby brother and everything was bad one way or another, so she literaly started making all of the baby food herself.
Could you imagine the kind of life miss Rachel will live in like 20 years, the entire population of 20 somethings knowing about her and seeing her as an iconic part of their childhood It's like our generation seeing elmo or Barney in real life
9:47 In the US we have something called jury nullification. It means that even if you're guilty of a crime the jury can rule that the law is unjust, unconstitutional, or that the person did it in good faith like defending their family. It's meant to set legal precedent by the people.
The problem I have with the lawsuit is that if i go to the mall with family members and one of them dies from eating a burger from some restaurant in the food court, how can I sue the mall management company for something one of their renters did? The lawsuit is just a case of the plaintiff going after someone with deeper pockets than the entity who accidentally and/or negligently caused the death because that someone has some sort of business relationship with the real defendant. THis isn't a case of franchisees and brand companies, it's a case of tenants and landlords and how liable is a landlord for what a tenant does. And, heaven forfend Yoko going after someone. She'd scream, I mean sing, them into submission. Poor sap.
Quick reminder that the copyright laws are shitty as they are because Disney lawyers are so hard into protecting the mouse, so this is absurd, but not a shocker.
Disney would have a slightly easier time if they said that the restaurant is technically at fault and they are not owned by the disney company. It would still be a bad look, but they junped straight to "you can't sue us because of this thing you didn't know you did years ago."
I feel like if they thought their "We don't even own this business" case was strong they probably wouldn't resort to "well yeah but you logged in to our website".
@@BlunthammerDisney can be correct here, but also wrong. IMHO the PR fallout is significantly worse than any amount Disney would pay in a lawsuit. That said, the news cycle is fast enough now that it might be worth the risk.
A lawyers job is to find the get-out clause rather regardless of guilt or accountability. The world is built by lawyers one upping each other for points, they don’t care that someone died.
Buffalo, NY has a lot of General mills manufacturing. If you're downtown, depending on the wind, the city can smell like cheerios and sometimes lucky charms.
IMO, most of what makes up a EULA should not be legally binding. Say I buy a video game console: I walk to the store, grab the system, and the seller sais "If you open that box, no returns". So I go back home, open the box, take the thing out, plug it in, and turn it on. Then I'm met with a splash page that tells me: "Here's what you can and can't do with the thing you paid money for". Now, I already paid the money. I can't return it, and I don't agree wth what the EULA tries to impose on me. The problem is, if I say no, I'm boote dout of the system and am left with a useless brick that I paid money for. Then the only other option is to begrudgingly accept so I don't lose out on my investment. I consider this being forced to accept terms under duress. My good was held hostage, after my money was taken away. Contracts signe dunder duress legally are void. So why isn't it like that? They force me to sign a contract or withhold that which I should own. But other than than, an EULA should have limited power. I don't believe that it should tell people what they can use the product for or not. U don' tthink you should be limited once you buy a good. Now, arguably, they could state that they can deny you some services, like in terms of a warranty, but you should have the right to use what you pay cash for.
For franchises, you usually sue them directly, then the brand/owner company... you have to go steps (at least in the US)... the rationale is that the franchise entity is MEANT to be ENSURING the franchises are following proper controls and protections. You start closest but up to any/all responsible, usually seeking the "deep pockets". THAT fwiw, is ALSO a protection facet for the franchising person, too... the idea that parent company is protecting your supply chain and protecting you is A HUGE boon.
Re: suing franchise owner or brands, The way civil liability suits works in the US is that you name all possible defendants and try to claim they have liability for a legal reason, and then they all have to answer, and in their response they can disclaim liability for whatever legal reason but you then get to say it’s bs and it goes to the judge. But if your complaint is well-written and cited, the question isn’t who’s possibly liable as a named defendant, it’s whether they are legally liable for the damages caused. Source: Me, I work in safety and regulation-based civil litigation. 🤣
We should all thank Disney for pushing ToS to the point of absurdity so this lawsuit will force some sanity into them by law & also bring public awarwness to the craziness of modern ToS.
In this instance the restaurant made a specific agreement with the diner that they would keep allergens out of their food. Their website also says they can cater to people with allergies. By breaching this verbal contract with the diner they are culpable. The entire Disney + or Disney App arbitration clauses is around their digital stores and their services. A completely different thing. What should happen with this is all those force fed user agreements for digital services should give those who are signing the right to reject particular clauses in part or in totality. Then Disney could decide if they still want your money or not. Then it’s an honest agreement.
You couldn't have common sense rules like that, because you can't be charged for a law made after you did something Imagine, you do something legal, then the judge decides in your ruling "actually that should have been illegal so you go to jail" Following the law would be impossible
Did you read the full suit? Disney doesn’t own the restaurant, it’s in Disney springs. They are simply protecting themselves it’s like the 5th reason down in why they can’t sue them, number 1 being they have no association with the restaurant. The man’s lawyers are doing a good as hell job spinning this though 🙄
Same thing with the "Coke murders" - there's no reason to believe that Coke hired a paramilitary to attack their own (subsidiary) factory. And the case was thrown out in its own country. There's no reason to expect a US court to pick it up.
Maybe the point is just don't include this as a reason why Disney shouldn't be sued. You said there are 4 other reasons and they likely have far more viability it's just a bit of a stretch to include a they agreed to a Eula that means they have to go to arbitration for a free trial of Disney+. It's just a bad augment to include and I doubt Disney would want it included since the PR hit for a weak argument doesn't gain them much and it only hurts their image.
one more reason why reactionary lawmaking is a menace to society. this entire EULA thing being a grey area shouldnt exist. there should be clear legislation on what is and what isnt enforcable by companies. this case should never have happened.
I don’t understand how they don’t care about the consequences of their own actions and don’t care about their reputation at all because they paid the money anyway
It's not the best but FWIW Disney Springs is just an outdoor shopping mall and the restaurant inside of Disney Springs isn't owned by Disney. The husband was arguing Disney is at fault bc the restaurant was listed as accommodating allergies on the website. Disney arguing that due to their various TOS on their website, Disney+, and parks, it has to go to arbitration. So it's more like suing a mall owner bc they had an allergy friendly symbol next to Applebee's on their wayfinder. Worst decision they made is bc of optics.
Disney didn't change anything. They chose to "Waive their arbitration rights" on this case because of the bad publicity. My take away is that, since I have had Disney+ in the past, I can never go to a Disney property again because apparently I signed away my rights to sue them if they are negligent, because I used their streaming service.
You know the absolute worst part about this is, the husband was only asking for $50,000 to help cover medical expenses, even though he should be entitled to like 50 million is my mind. And Disney is going to pay more to there lawyers to fight this, then what the man was asking for to help out with medical expenses. It’s most fucked up thing I’ve ever seen when comes to Disney. If they are capable of this, then they are capable of way worst in my opinion.
I feel part of the problem here is also the increasing size of companies. Initially a Disney made movies, just.. movies. Now they're a media empire with merchandise, streaming services, restaurants, theme parks, everything. That is a problem, because you can't just put the same EULA on an Ice cream and a streaming service, it's just stupid.... But it is something Disney and co think they can.....
Keep in mind that they are arguing that because of the tos they need to not pay the couple. They are arguing that they have to have an arbitration case. Which is a case where instead of it taking place in court it would take place with a impartial judge that would decide the case. Don't get me wrong its really bad but it doesn't stop people from sueing them and getting there due compensation. There is a really good legal eagle video on this. It is actually surprisingly a very common thing in the us tos
Arbitration shouldn't enable a massive company to avoid accountability for committing actual crimes. "Oops we accidentally killed your loved one" is not a "dispute".
You can't just sign away your right to be alive through a contract in the US or most countries, Disney is completely out of line here.
unless..
I was just thinking this too. The constitution grants rights to the citizens of it's country. Can a citizen sign anything with some entity that would supersede these rights? That would mean the contract stands above the constitution.
That’s not even close to what the case is but okay👍
Can you even consider terms of service a contract? You have no option to say no or adjust/negotiate parts of it soo... it is just a one sided forced agreement in many cases under duress because if you don't accept the terms the TV you just bought is just another paperweight... so technically they are holding the money you spent on the TV hostage...
@@Fuxy22 it's not legally enforcible in most cases for a reason
If Google owned Kraft, and Kraft foods killed a lot of people, you can't sue Kraft for wrongful death because you agreed to the ToS and EULA of Google.
Normally, no, but Big Tech has indeed been consolidating their EULAs and TOSes as umbrella contracts for all products and services, including subsidiaries for the past few years. This case might be the instigator for the courts to finally clamp down on this extremely-abusable behavior…
Different situation. If Disney and the restaurant had completely different names and were 100% separated in IP, that would be comparable. If Google owned Kraft, called it Google Foods, and you got poisoned, you would sue Google. Disney had their name on the restaurant, and as stated in the video that means Disney vets for the restaurant and must take responsibility
Alphabet*
Google is the product, alphabet is the company
Just like how Disney+ is the product and Disney is the company
@@JovenDecarne by that logic all anyone would have to do to avoid lawsuits is make sure the company name doesn't match the brand name
@@LilOleTinyMe no because you would still own the restaurant
Disney's lawyers sleep on micky shapped pillows full of $$$$
Same could probably said for like Mass transit. Who here wouldn't like to be on a high-speed train themed with MIckey Mouse? (Think Japan with the Pikachu content)
nope, it's definitely Scrooge McDuck
Disney paid more money to their legal team in one hour than this guy is even seeking in damages.
not true. he is seeking MORE then 50k. 50k is the minimum you have to state in Florida
@@stoves5877 that changes nothing about my statement.
No it's in excess of 50k. It's a threshold that's stated in lawsuits where you need to state whether the damages you seek are more or less. There's no limit and if tried in court would be well over 7 figures.
Admission of guilt probably wouldn't be a good outlook and forced arbritation could have worked if they managed to get the husband quiet about it if it wasn't delivered like an insult.
I feel like Disney mainly does it to not just give in, because this may be more expensive for them, but the amount of ppl that would try to sue them if they just gave in immediately would cost them way more than their lawyers.
"I don't know how Disney's lawyers can sleep at night" I guess silk bed sheets are pretty comfortable
I said "on piles of money", but yeah, that's pretty much it.
They are
If you're not evil you can't work at Disney, it's a prerequisite
To think Disney lawyers are well paid. lol.
*I don't know in what world they thought this would result into good PR??!*
Do they not realize we already hate their guts for 100 different reasons and we will pick up on this?
@notbfg9000 "They" are a lot of different people with different incentives. It is little surprise that the accountants get a bit more say right now.
Money was more important than PR
@@tonycamp4514 If you're telling me that in their entire legal department there is not one person in charge who at least had the passing thought "hey, if we file these papers will this make our company look bad?" then I don't believe it
They didn't? Obviously
@@sherlockowiec1693 Pretty sure this cost Disney more than $50,000.
Louis Rossman has been sounding the alarm on all these companies forcing arbitration in their terms of service. HERE WE GO
Louis Rossman completely misinterpreted the facts of the case and didn't read into it enough.
This is a clip from Friday, but as of a couple hours ago Disney has made statements going back on their contesting the lawsuit. Basically saying "oops, my bad nevermind"
"definitely not testing the grounds or something"
More like " Our lawyers told is this would likely fail in court and we would have to pay more money than we already are likely on the hook for "
Oops $50,000 was not worth the reputational damage and legal fees.
@@The_SlavstralianBingo.
Its mostly “we are only being sued for a small amount. If the judge strikes down the forced arbitration clause we could be on the hook for a ton more money. Lets just drop it”. I read a comment from a lawyer that the person suing has an uphill battle to prove liability of disney anyways, so why take the risk of forced arbitration going away when theres a small risk of paying a small amount anyways
And Remember Kids: The Next Time That Somebody Tells You, “Companies Wouldn’t Do That,” Oh Yes They Would
The argument for "common sense" legislation fell apart recently with the ruling that "boneless" was a style of cooking and not saying that there are no bones in it
The case was not that ridiculous. Decaf coffee does not guarantee there will be 0 caffeine in the coffee. Similarly "boneless" is not a certification that it is completely bone-free.
If the dude in the case had horked down simply "deboned" wings without chewing he would still be in the same situation.
@@Legitster Decaffeinated coffee is coffee where the caffeine is reduced, which makes sense. It is not "caffeine free" coffee. Boneless is an actual word that is defined as "without bones" so the description says that it has no bones
Yeah, but if you crack down on that with legislation you're just going to get restaurants with "reduced bone wings". Which doesn't really feel like an improvement.
@@danieljensen2626I think it's an improvement, since the advertising is more honest at least. Don't promise something you can't deliver.
@@danieljensen2626 I'd prefer that, because if a restaurant and their supply chain can't guarantee that there isn't bones in something I'd want to know because it lets me know they have subpar standards and I don't want to be their customer.
I worked on adding allergies to the dining reservation system for Disney, it was gross negligence on the part of the restaurant.
Sounds like it. In my experience, Disney is usually 1000% on top of food allergies. Something went seriously wrong here.
Not own by Disney.
Yeah, but the establishment was on their premises. Disney's guests have a degree of trust they associate with the brand. This couple wouldn't have dined in the establishment if it wasn't located within their premises and advertised as allergen-free.
@@MyUsualComment it's at Disney Springs which is their mall area. If you got food poisining at a food court it's not the fault of the mall.
@@stoves5877 Same point applies; it's still within their premises. If I'm not mistaken, the establishment was advertised as an allergen-free option within Disney Springs.
Literally Techno-Feudalism
That's called cyberpunk.
It’s awful to live under, but damn it makes a good fictional setting lol
Forced arbitration agreements are fundamentally unfair and stupid in the first place. To then stretch it so hilariously like Disney is doing is even more absurd
Forced arbitration, AI usage, and user-content-exploitation are the main reasons that all companies have been pushing out "updated terms" emails in the past year.
Imagine if Meta headsets starting blowing up, killing their users through negligence. What percentage of people have signed an agreement with Facebook and have no idea what terms they have agreed?
Parent here. My 8yo son knows some of the Disney IP characters, but he's in no way into them they way we were as kids. Without the unifying drum of broadcast TV (i.e. Sat morning cartoons) every parent shows their kids a different set of streaming media (inc. UA-camrs), so there's a lot of "Oh your kid is into X? Never heard of X" when we talk.
He wasn't even subscribed. He used a free trial in 2019.
And he agreed to the agreement for that, and to buy tickets, did you even watch the video?
@@RvB_Fan_since_8Did you read Google's terms of service when you signed up?
@@trg3625they are still enforceable by most courts.
@@RvB_Fan_since_8 Why are you defending Disney?
@@RvB_Fan_since_8 so if airline companies do the same for airplanes and they crash like the 737 max there shouldnt be a lawsuit possible either?
Ironically given this is Disney, what they have done here is cartoonishly evil. There is no redeeming quality in this action.
Unironically, arguing this in court should get all lawyers involved disbarred. It's such a clearly bad faith argument and so absolutely evil that it should be punished
I wonder even more that they didn't went "Not run by us, nothing to do with us" instead of this nonsense.
It really isn't if you actually checked the legal precedings and not the headlines.
Yeah not how any of that works. When was the last time you saw someone being disbarred for a bad argument especially while defending a big company
@@pafnutiytheartist there's a difference between a bad argument and a disingenuous one. This is such a twisting of the law and bending of what "forced arbitration" means that it is genuinely evil and the people making it are doing something so morally abhorrent they should never work in law again
@@TheLeftistOwl They definitely should be disbarred, morally speaking. What I'm saying is that's not how any of this works in practice and there's not going to be any consequences for the lawyers whatsoever.
8:10 in brazil we have something similar just instead of "common sense" here the law works on "good faith" basically it means that even if you are correct you lose your case because the acussation was made in "bad faith"
Disney lawyers are notoriously ruthless.
Like Nintendo. Funny how children's media are ruthlessly evil…
Back to the episode of "is it legal or is it evil?" Featuring Disney
For thise saying disney took it back NO THEY DIDNT. They said QUOTE “we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.” SO THEY ARE SAYING THE F**** CLAUSE IS STILL VALID THEY ARE JUST BEING 'SENSITIVE' WTF
16:35 This is the same reason retro video games and sports cars from the 80's/90's sell for so much these days. We were raised with Disney World being like the ultimate vacation, , but the bulk of us never went. So now that we are grown and can actually afford it, we do it.
8:00 You start talking about common sense filters in the legal system. Ideally, this would be the judges' job to filter through this. It's the whole point of why they exist, to be the neutral 3rd party that that runs the court proceedings and to make sure that both sides are fairly treated during the process.
Judges are human and corruptible.
Clearly worded laws cannot be corrupted.
boycotted disney long time ago, terrible terrible terrible company. people seem to forget this
Section 42 - Post-Mortem Contributions:
Should the user experience an unexpected software crash of the permanent type (commonly referred to as "kicking the bucket"), the user hereby whimsically agrees to donate their mortal coil to the entity. This contribution shall be used for purposes including, but not limited to, scientific research, haunted house decorations, or as an extremely quiet office intern. Participation in this clause will be considered as the user's last and most generous in-app purchase, and will entitle their spirit to VIP status in the thereafter, which includes skipping any lines at celestial gates and a 20% discount at the afterlife cafeteria.
I have food allergies and went to Disney in 2022. Every single Disney restaurant was very attentive to my allergies, far above and beyond almost every other restaurant I’ve been to. I’m surprised and sad that this happened.
50k ish pay the poor guy say we are sorry we will investigate this so it won't happen again. is it so hard to be rich and not of the rails evil
Because negligence of human life is the fastest way to get rich. The evil are the powerful, and it's the governments job to rain them in. It is we the people's job to make sure the powerful in the government aren't evil.
that's not true at all. In Florida when you file you have to state if you are seeking more or less then 50k. They put more then 50k. Also Disney isn't liable they do not own or operate the restaurant.
@@kulgan96 he’s filing for AT LEAST 50k. They will be seeking millions
Journalism is dead these days. All the reporting is garbage. It's not $50,000, that's just a legal threshold, like "vandalism under/over $2,000", like tax-brackets. As others have said, it's in the millions (obviously!) The reporting on it is just poorly done and poorly worded and copy-pasted AI rubbish. Moreover, even if it were only $50,000, settling would set a legal precedent that would open the doors to being sued every other day because of all the other crap that Disney does. Why do you think they did the arbitration-clause in the first place? Settling would nullify that.
Every time a major corporate entity overreaches in legal matters, they should automatically lose exclusive rights of their 5 most profitable IPs.
they should have the copyright inverted. so everyone on earth has the right to use mickey mouse EXCEPT disney
Remember people. Disney isn't saying it's not their fault. Disney is saying you can't sue them despite it being their fault.
I am 7:10 in and I almost forgot what was the subject
The 50k is a minimum to have the case brought before a certain court.
And?
@DSP720 there are many possible implications to my statement. You are free to consider all of them.
@@DSP720 you're nhot the sharpest knife iin the drawer are you?
Damn, florida courts are so bad that people can't trust them to render a sane decision? Tragic
12:06 usually in the US, plaintiffs name as many entities as possible. Then defendants can make motions to be removed from the suit
Was just about to say the same.
The subway figure out who's paying the lawsuit. If you skippe one entity, there argument is going to be nono it's not our fault it's the other entity.
I love our German laws when it comes to forced arbitration agreements.
there are straight up not valid unless they are signed, and they have to be explicitly forced arbitration agreements and nothing else in that document
(source: wikipedia)
Its only a matter of time before they add a clause to their ToS, that says that they can make end of life decisions for you
I'll note a sued a Tacobell I was employed with several years ago, and I sued the franchise owner and not the larger corporation
In case people didn't know, Disney has now dropped this defense
They need to be punished to never try this again.
Stated with duck Disney, ended with Linus thinking about making a kids channel.
Also think about the fact that it was only 50K. That is basically nothing for them, and a completely reasonable amount.
Subway left a knife in my sister's takeout last month lol it was wrapped up with the sammich
Any restaurant should never give ANY assurances to a customer who is allergic to any ingredient in the kitchen. If it exists, the possibility for accidental cross contamination is too great. These money hungry businesses like Disney just care about making the sale by any means necessary even if it means giving empty promises or assurances. If there are nuts in the kitchen, do not attempt to prepare food for ANYONE with a nut allergy.
I know this would mean potential 'discrimination' to those with an allergy, but it's just not worth the liability of serving them from a kitchen where their serious allergen is present.
If Linus was singing childrens songs in an 8th Channel my kids would totally be shown it.
This is why the only correct way to watch Disney movies and shows is on the High Seas. Do not give them a penny of your money until they stop actively trying to be the worst company on the planet.
You're still paying for it with your time, with your life. The best way is to take some OCD meds to treat the FOMO and just skip it altogether and do something you'll actually enjoy with your limited time on Earth.
@@I.____.....__...__ well you obviously do not have kids then. Enjoy your childless life.
@@light-masterI mean, you don't have to show Disney movies to your kids. Or Disney anything really, there's never been more options of entertaining stuff for child entertainment.
So when is the whack-a-elijah game going to be a thing?
There’s a special place in hell for Disney’s lawyers.
he is only suing for 50k! his wife died! he should of sued for millions! Disney is fucking stupid this is 50 thousand they should of paid it to quietly settle with this guy. There lawyers probably billed 50,000 the first day of this suit.
Legal eagle did a video on this, the 50k was a minimum, not the amount they were suing for.
Legit why are we not using AI to read EULA agreements for us, and point out what type of potential loopholes are there, and worrying legal language?
Because AI sucks at finding legal loopholes
Talking about cereal, it reminds me of when my mother was looking at baby food for my baby brother and everything was bad one way or another, so she literaly started making all of the baby food herself.
Could you imagine the kind of life miss Rachel will live in like 20 years, the entire population of 20 somethings knowing about her and seeing her as an iconic part of their childhood
It's like our generation seeing elmo or Barney in real life
8:30 Oh I'm quite sure they don't sleep... at night... or have reflections.
Linus went from firing colton to somehow using Elijah for random examples
9:47
In the US we have something called jury nullification. It means that even if you're guilty of a crime the jury can rule that the law is unjust, unconstitutional, or that the person did it in good faith like defending their family. It's meant to set legal precedent by the people.
"If you have kids and you're a millennial you probably can't afford anything" ...I felt that
The problem I have with the lawsuit is that if i go to the mall with family members and one of them dies from eating a burger from some restaurant in the food court, how can I sue the mall management company for something one of their renters did? The lawsuit is just a case of the plaintiff going after someone with deeper pockets than the entity who accidentally and/or negligently caused the death because that someone has some sort of business relationship with the real defendant.
THis isn't a case of franchisees and brand companies, it's a case of tenants and landlords and how liable is a landlord for what a tenant does.
And, heaven forfend Yoko going after someone. She'd scream, I mean sing, them into submission. Poor sap.
They could've paid the poor fellow to "go away" but instead we got this s storm. Shows the depravity of these "individuals" for lack of a better word.
Quick reminder that the copyright laws are shitty as they are because Disney lawyers are so hard into protecting the mouse, so this is absurd, but not a shocker.
Disney would have a slightly easier time if they said that the restaurant is technically at fault and they are not owned by the disney company. It would still be a bad look, but they junped straight to "you can't sue us because of this thing you didn't know you did years ago."
I'm writing my thesis on why arbitration clauses need to be done away entirely. It's predatory on so many levels.
Cant wait for LMG's new channel, Linus Tech Toddlers, after seeing the success of Ms. Rachel
Disney's lawyers just made the Nintendo's lawyers look very human
Weyland-Yutani and Umbrella Corp. are proud.
The lawsuit is crazy but disney springs is a mall. If i eat out of a mall restaurant the restaurant is at fault not the mall
What everyone is ignoring. Sad that i have to side with disney on this one. But not their defense. Thats nonsense.
@@Blunthammer Its sad that wether or not you have a sound defence, you just have to use bullshit legal jargon to win either way
@@SpikeTheBear agree
I feel like if they thought their "We don't even own this business" case was strong they probably wouldn't resort to "well yeah but you logged in to our website".
@@BlunthammerDisney can be correct here, but also wrong.
IMHO the PR fallout is significantly worse than any amount Disney would pay in a lawsuit.
That said, the news cycle is fast enough now that it might be worth the risk.
My 2 year old loves Ms. Rachel, it helps him learn quite a bit about speaking since hes a bit behind
The family was asking for $50k the loss in profit from the backlash will almost certainly be more than $50k how are corporate execs this stupid?
A lawyers job is to find the get-out clause rather regardless of guilt or accountability. The world is built by lawyers one upping each other for points, they don’t care that someone died.
Floatplane needs to remove arbitration from their TOS.
Buffalo, NY has a lot of General mills manufacturing. If you're downtown, depending on the wind, the city can smell like cheerios and sometimes lucky charms.
I can already see the next april fools LTT is going to be a kids channel... Singing and storytime with Linus
IMO, most of what makes up a EULA should not be legally binding.
Say I buy a video game console:
I walk to the store, grab the system, and the seller sais "If you open that box, no returns".
So I go back home, open the box, take the thing out, plug it in, and turn it on. Then I'm met with a splash page that tells me: "Here's what you can and can't do with the thing you paid money for". Now, I already paid the money. I can't return it, and I don't agree wth what the EULA tries to impose on me. The problem is, if I say no, I'm boote dout of the system and am left with a useless brick that I paid money for. Then the only other option is to begrudgingly accept so I don't lose out on my investment.
I consider this being forced to accept terms under duress. My good was held hostage, after my money was taken away. Contracts signe dunder duress legally are void. So why isn't it like that? They force me to sign a contract or withhold that which I should own.
But other than than, an EULA should have limited power. I don't believe that it should tell people what they can use the product for or not. U don' tthink you should be limited once you buy a good. Now, arguably, they could state that they can deny you some services, like in terms of a warranty, but you should have the right to use what you pay cash for.
Came for Disney roasts ... left with Ms. Rachel knowledge. Thx I guess.
somehow on a topic so sad and infuriating yall manage to crack me up at the end thankyou for giving this topic coverage.
For franchises, you usually sue them directly, then the brand/owner company... you have to go steps (at least in the US)... the rationale is that the franchise entity is MEANT to be ENSURING the franchises are following proper controls and protections. You start closest but up to any/all responsible, usually seeking the "deep pockets".
THAT fwiw, is ALSO a protection facet for the franchising person, too... the idea that parent company is protecting your supply chain and protecting you is A HUGE boon.
Re: suing franchise owner or brands, The way civil liability suits works in the US is that you name all possible defendants and try to claim they have liability for a legal reason, and then they all have to answer, and in their response they can disclaim liability for whatever legal reason but you then get to say it’s bs and it goes to the judge. But if your complaint is well-written and cited, the question isn’t who’s possibly liable as a named defendant, it’s whether they are legally liable for the damages caused.
Source: Me, I work in safety and regulation-based civil litigation. 🤣
This sounds like a joke "The Simpsons" would pull on Disney 25 years ago
Best argument for piracy we’ve had so far!
Their reputation proceeds them yet again
i think its quite unreasonable to expect the contract i signed to watch movies applied to their theme park as well
We should all thank Disney for pushing ToS to the point of absurdity so this lawsuit will force some sanity into them by law & also bring public awarwness to the craziness of modern ToS.
In this instance the restaurant made a specific agreement with the diner that they would keep allergens out of their food. Their website also says they can cater to people with allergies. By breaching this verbal contract with the diner they are culpable.
The entire Disney + or Disney App arbitration clauses is around their digital stores and their services. A completely different thing.
What should happen with this is all those force fed user agreements for digital services should give those who are signing the right to reject particular clauses in part or in totality. Then Disney could decide if they still want your money or not. Then it’s an honest agreement.
You couldn't have common sense rules like that, because you can't be charged for a law made after you did something
Imagine, you do something legal, then the judge decides in your ruling "actually that should have been illegal so you go to jail"
Following the law would be impossible
8:34 with fat stacks of cash for pillows.
Did you read the full suit? Disney doesn’t own the restaurant, it’s in Disney springs. They are simply protecting themselves it’s like the 5th reason down in why they can’t sue them, number 1 being they have no association with the restaurant. The man’s lawyers are doing a good as hell job spinning this though 🙄
Same thing with the "Coke murders" - there's no reason to believe that Coke hired a paramilitary to attack their own (subsidiary) factory. And the case was thrown out in its own country. There's no reason to expect a US court to pick it up.
Maybe the point is just don't include this as a reason why Disney shouldn't be sued. You said there are 4 other reasons and they likely have far more viability it's just a bit of a stretch to include a they agreed to a Eula that means they have to go to arbitration for a free trial of Disney+. It's just a bad augment to include and I doubt Disney would want it included since the PR hit for a weak argument doesn't gain them much and it only hurts their image.
The suing is for Disney saying the restaurant is free of any allergic food
one more reason why reactionary lawmaking is a menace to society. this entire EULA thing being a grey area shouldnt exist. there should be clear legislation on what is and what isnt enforcable by companies. this case should never have happened.
i'm a 33yo male and i went to watch inside out 2 by myself bcs i absolutely loved part 1 and have been waiting for part 2 since 1 came out
8:35 they sleep like babies on top of a big pile of money.
I don’t understand how they don’t care about the consequences of their own actions and don’t care about their reputation at all because they paid the money anyway
Following the show's logic, if someone throws a LTT bottle and it hits me, LTT is responsible in some way and I should probably sue
It's not the best but FWIW Disney Springs is just an outdoor shopping mall and the restaurant inside of Disney Springs isn't owned by Disney. The husband was arguing Disney is at fault bc the restaurant was listed as accommodating allergies on the website. Disney arguing that due to their various TOS on their website, Disney+, and parks, it has to go to arbitration. So it's more like suing a mall owner bc they had an allergy friendly symbol next to Applebee's on their wayfinder. Worst decision they made is bc of optics.
Linus breakfast cereal. Call it "Quick Bits" 😂
Disney didn't change anything. They chose to "Waive their arbitration rights" on this case because of the bad publicity. My take away is that, since I have had Disney+ in the past, I can never go to a Disney property again because apparently I signed away my rights to sue them if they are negligent, because I used their streaming service.
Disney is going to copy Southpark and slide the human centipede into the TOS.
This is probably illegal to tell people they cant sue you if somebody dies.
You know the absolute worst part about this is, the husband was only asking for $50,000 to help cover medical expenses, even though he should be entitled to like 50 million is my mind. And Disney is going to pay more to there lawyers to fight this, then what the man was asking for to help out with medical expenses. It’s most fucked up thing I’ve ever seen when comes to Disney. If they are capable of this, then they are capable of way worst in my opinion.
oh disney's lawyers can sleep very well in a very comfortable bed with all the money they earn.
I feel part of the problem here is also the increasing size of companies. Initially a Disney made movies, just.. movies. Now they're a media empire with merchandise, streaming services, restaurants, theme parks, everything. That is a problem, because you can't just put the same EULA on an Ice cream and a streaming service, it's just stupid.... But it is something Disney and co think they can.....
Now you know why they are screeming out and bleeding green
For a second there, I thought Linus sounded like shaggy 😂. I miss those scooby Doo cartoons😢.
Keep in mind that they are arguing that because of the tos they need to not pay the couple. They are arguing that they have to have an arbitration case. Which is a case where instead of it taking place in court it would take place with a impartial judge that would decide the case. Don't get me wrong its really bad but it doesn't stop people from sueing them and getting there due compensation. There is a really good legal eagle video on this. It is actually surprisingly a very common thing in the us tos
Arbitration shouldn't enable a massive company to avoid accountability for committing actual crimes. "Oops we accidentally killed your loved one" is not a "dispute".
But even if I unsubscribe, I'm apparently bound by that arbitration agreement in perpetuity.