Disney Allergy Lawsuit is Crazy
Summary
TLDRThe video script criticizes Disney for alleged unethical practices, comparing the company to a villainous organization. It discusses a tragic incident where a woman died from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant, and Disney's attempt to use arbitration clauses from a Disney Plus trial agreement to avoid liability. The script highlights the issue of sneaky terms in contracts that consumers often unknowingly agree to, and the difficulty of holding large corporations accountable for their actions.
Takeaways
- đĄ The speaker expresses strong criticism towards Disney, considering it one of the most evil companies on the planet.
- đč The speaker humorously suggests that Disney's board of directors might be filled with villains, including Mickey Mouse and Lucifer.
- đ The script discusses a lawsuit involving a woman who had an allergic reaction and died after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant.
- đ€Ż Disney argues that a Disney Plus trial agreement signed by the woman's husband in 2019 could affect the lawsuit's validity.
- đœ The couple had informed the restaurant staff about the woman's severe allergies to dairy and nuts, and were assured the food would be safe.
- đ« Despite the assurances, the woman suffered an allergic reaction after eating the food, leading to her death.
- đ The husband is suing Disney for negligence, but Disney claims the lawsuit should be dismissed due to the terms of the Disney Plus trial.
- đ€ The speaker questions the logic of a Disney Plus trial agreement affecting an incident at a Disney park, highlighting the absurdity of such a connection.
- đ The script mentions that such arbitration clauses are common in contracts, often unnoticed by consumers who skip through terms and conditions.
- đïž The speaker discusses the legal implications and the challenges faced by consumers when trying to hold large corporations accountable for their actions.
Q & A
What is the main issue discussed in the script involving Disney?
-The main issue discussed is the case of a woman who had an allergic reaction and died after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant, and Disney's attempt to use a Disney Plus trial agreement to avoid liability in the resulting lawsuit.
What is the 'D virus' mentioned in the script?
-The 'D virus' is a metaphor used in the script to describe the influence Disney has on its consumers, turning them into 'Disney Defenders' who defend the company's actions and products.
Why is the Disney Plus trial agreement relevant to the lawsuit?
-The Disney Plus trial agreement is relevant because Disney claims that by signing up for the trial, the husband agreed to terms that would force the lawsuit into arbitration rather than a court trial.
What is the significance of the restaurant Ragin Road Irish Pub in this case?
-Ragin Road Irish Pub is significant because it is the restaurant where the woman had an allergic reaction after being assured that her food would be allergen-free.
What is arbitration, and why is Disney trying to use it in this case?
-Arbitration is a process where disputes are resolved by a neutral third party rather than going to court. Disney is trying to use arbitration to avoid a public trial and potentially negative publicity.
What is the argument against the validity of the Disney Plus trial agreement in this context?
-The argument is that the agreement should not apply to an incident at a Disney park that is unrelated to the streaming service, and that the deceased woman never agreed to the terms as she was not a subscriber.
What is the role of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts?
-Mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are used by companies to prevent consumers from taking disputes to court, often limiting their options for recourse and protecting the company from liability.
Why is the script's author critical of the Supreme Court's stance on this issue?
-The author is critical because the Supreme Court's view that consumers can simply choose not to sign contracts with arbitration clauses is seen as unrealistic and out of touch with the reality that consumers often have no choice but to accept such terms.
What is the broader issue raised by the script regarding consumer protection?
-The broader issue is the lack of consumer protection against corporations that include unfair terms and conditions in their contracts, making it difficult for consumers to seek justice when harmed.
What is the script's author's view on the public's awareness of terms and conditions in contracts?
-The author believes that most people do not read the full terms and conditions of contracts due to their length and complexity, leaving them unaware of potential clauses that could affect their rights.
How does the script describe the impact of these practices on the average consumer?
-The script describes these practices as 'exceptionally evil' and 'scary' because they give corporations leverage to fight lawsuits and make it hard for average consumers to fight back, even when the corporation is at fault.
Outlines
đĄ Disney's Legal Battle Over Allergic Reaction Tragedy
The script discusses a tragic incident at a Disney Springs restaurant where a woman died after an allergic reaction, and Disney's controversial attempt to use a Disney Plus trial agreement to shield themselves from a lawsuit. The woman had severe allergies to dairy and nuts, which were communicated to the restaurant staff, but she still received a meal containing these allergens. Despite the restaurant's reputation for accommodating allergies, the woman had a fatal reaction. The husband is suing Disney, but Disney argues that by signing up for a Disney Plus trial, he agreed to terms that force disputes into arbitration, not a public court. The script criticizes this practice as a way for large corporations to evade responsibility and highlights the broader issue of 'sneaky' clauses in terms of service that consumers often blindly agree to.
đ€Ź Critique of Arbitration Clauses and Corporate Evasion of Liability
This paragraph delves deeper into the legal and ethical implications of the arbitration clause used by Disney and other corporations to avoid liability for their actions. It points out the absurdity of a free trial agreement affecting legal recourse in an unrelated situation, such as a restaurant's failure to accommodate a customer's allergies. The script also mentions that the Supreme Court has upheld the legality of such clauses, despite their potential to harm consumers. It criticizes the expectation that consumers should read and understand every term in lengthy contracts, which is often impractical. The paragraph concludes with a call to action against these practices, emphasizing the need for consumer protection against corporate exploitation.
đ Disney's Response and Public Outcry
The final paragraph provides Disney's response to the incident, claiming no responsibility for the restaurant's actions since it is not owned or operated by Disney. It also mentions the public's reaction to Disney's legal strategy, with many finding it unreasonable and exploitative. The script ends on a note of frustration with Disney's practices and the broader issue of corporate legal tactics that favor the powerful over the individual consumer.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄDisney
đĄAllergic Reaction
đĄDisney Plus Trial
đĄArbitration
đĄTerms and Conditions
đĄRagin Road Irish Pub
đĄCorporate Liability
đĄConsumer Protection
đĄMandatory Arbitration
đĄSupreme Court
đĄEvil Corporations
Highlights
Disney is described as one of the most evil companies on the planet by the speaker.
The speaker compares Disney's board of directors to a gathering of super villains.
Disney is likened to a real-world Umbrella Corp, manufacturing a 'D virus' that turns people into Disney Defenders.
A tragic story is discussed involving a woman who died from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant.
Disney argues that terms from a Disney Plus trial signed in 2019 could affect the lawsuit regarding the allergic reaction.
The speaker questions the validity of a Disney Plus trial affecting a lawsuit unrelated to the streaming service.
The couple had informed the restaurant of severe allergies to dairy and nuts and were assured the food would be allergen-free.
The woman had an allergic reaction and passed away despite the restaurant's assurances.
The husband is suing Disney for the wrongful death, which the speaker believes is justified.
Disney's defense includes claiming the restaurant is not owned or operated by them, distancing themselves from responsibility.
The lawyer representing the family calls Disney's argument absurd and preposterous, highlighting the unreasonableness of the terms.
The terms of a Disney Plus free trial are criticized for being used to waive the right to a jury trial in unrelated disputes.
The speaker discusses the prevalence of sneaky clauses in contracts that consumers unknowingly agree to, affecting their legal rights.
The Supreme Court's stance on mandatory arbitration is criticized for being unrealistic and favoring corporations over consumers.
The speaker emphasizes the difficulty and impracticality of reading through every service's terms and conditions.
The issue is highlighted as a broader problem of corporations using legal loopholes to evade liability.
The speaker concludes by expressing strong disapproval of Disney's actions and the legal tactics used by corporations.
Transcripts
I've said for years now one of the most
evil companies on the planet is Disney I
imagine the board of directors is a
who's who of super villains you probably
got Mickey Mouse right next to Lucifer
in that seat it is always shocking to
see just how low they'll stoop for the
sake of a couple extra the Bloons
they're like a real world umbrella Corp
but instead of manufacturing the t-
virus that turns people into zombies
they manufacture the d virus that turns
people into Disney Defenders where
they'll always fight their PR battles
for them and constantly their piggy bank
for anything Disney slaps its [Â __Â ]
logo on it's sickening even when they
are completely in the wrong I've been
following a story for the last couple
days and I imagine some of you have as
well it's a very sad story about a woman
who had an allergic reaction and died
after eating at a Disney Springs
Restaurant and the holly jolly old
[Â __Â ] at Disney are arguing that
because the husband signed up for a
Disney Plus trial in
2019 he agreed to terms that would
basically turn this lawsuit into into
toilet paper to any sensible human being
on the planet with a functioning frontal
lobe you're probably asking yourself how
does a Disney Plus trial at all have any
grounds for this lawsuit when the
allergic reaction happened at one of
Disney's Parks it's not like his wife
had an allergic reaction to the dog [Â __Â ]
Disney plus is feeding them she passed
away because of a complete failure from
the restaurant it is entirely their
fault so the couple chose to eat at a
restaurant called Ragin Road Irish Pub
and they told the waiter that she had
severe allergies to Dairy and nuts and
she was unequivocally assured the food
would be allergen-free and they chose
this restaurant because it is apparently
very accommodating to people with
allergies so when the order arrived
there was no allergen-free Flags so they
inquired again if it was allergen-free
and were once again assured that they
were safe for her to consume 45 minutes
later she had an allergic reaction even
asked for administering an epip pin she
had difficulty breathing collapsed and
later passed away and the husband is
rightfully trying to sue Disney for this
because it is a colossal [Â __Â ] here and
Disney's just dancing on her grave
they're just spitting on her memory by
trying to toss out the wrongful death
lawsuit by trying to say that the
husband signed up for a Disney Plus
account in 2019 which has language that
prevents them from being sued in this
manner it have to be through arbitration
meaning it's overseen by a neutral third
party and not a judge and also he had
apparently agreed to similar terms when
purchasing a park ticket online in
September 2023 so this opened up a
massive can of worms here about all of
the sneaky scummy [Â __Â ] companies sneak
into their terms when you sign up for
services or if you purchase things
online you know that [Â __Â ] that every
human being on the planet skips through
with agreeing to terms and conditions
yeah it turns out sometimes there's some
really awful [Â __Â ] in there I wanted to
wait before talking about this because
because I've been talking to a lawyer
about it cuz I was very curious if there
is any legs at all for Disney to stand
on here but I just couldn't wait because
I've already seen a couple of
conversations about why it's entirely
this couple's fault for gambling with
their food
allergies the state of the world is so
[Â __Â ]
saddening how is it a gamble so she was
allergic to Dairy and nuts and this was
made abundantly clear to the staff of a
restaurant that is well known for being
accommodating to allergies apparently
this restaurant has a commitment to
being very conscious of allergens so
they chose this restaurant for that
reason and made it very clear multiple
times that Dairy and nuts were were a
problem and they were assured multiple
times that the food they had ordered was
not going to pose any problems for that
allergy they did everything they could
that's not gambling you absolute crom
magnon that are argu in that it's
actually their fault Disney's blameless
this is what I'm talking about with the
d virus people falling over themselves
to try and take bullets for Disney it is
a [Â __Â ] up from the restaurant and by
extension Disney I know they have more
money than God but even still this is
such an outrageous claim to be making
because signing up for a Disney Plus
trial should have no effect on what
happens at a Disney park that's not
related at all it shouldn't extend to
that just imagine if that was normal
let's say you're on a Boeing flight and
all the screws on the flight all of a
sudden just spontaneously pop off like a
a water balloon exploding and all of a
sudden your plane just disassembles
itself in the air and you you die
everyone dies on board because the
Boeing flight malfunctions as Boeing
flights are known to do these days well
what if Boeing said well that's a real
shame about that but you know we can't
be held liable for this because every
single one of them when purchasing their
tickets online agreed that no matter
what happens it's going to have to go to
arbitration so sorry about that but
really condolences I am super confident
that wouldn't work you can't just have
this blanket statement of now whatever
happens not our fault and you agreed to
it see you said right here doesn't
matter you're you're [Â __Â ] like that
just that can't work and from what I've
heard from a couple of lawyers that have
talked about it online as well as a
couple conversations I've had this
doesn't really protect Disney but this
has become so common in contracts as a
way of trying to weasel big corporations
out of liability but it's still scary
because it does give them some leverage
to fight on it gives them an angle and
with the amount of money they can pour
into defending themselves it's going to
make it very hard for normal people to
fight back even when Disney is 100%
responsible for the tragedy that
occurred but at least Disney's very
apologetic here we're deeply saddened by
the family's loss and understand their
grief given that this restaurant is
neither owned nor operated by Disney we
are merely defending ourselves against
the plaintiff's attorneys attempt to
include us in their lawsuit against the
restaurant they're fundamentally going
oh we don't know those guys but they
just use our land we're kind of just
like a landlord we we are not associated
with those Scoundrels over there at all
no no no not us nope that you're coming
after the wrong guy bub go after them
not our fault and if you do want to go
after us you can't really cuz uh you're
Disney Plus free trial from 2019 did you
forget about that EK sorry now the
lawyer representing the family called it
absurd Preposterous saying that the case
is based on the incredible argument that
any person who signs up for an account
even free trials that are not extended
beyond the trial period will have
forever waved the right to a jury trial
which is pure insanity and they also
argue that Mr Piccolo the husband agreed
to the terms of use for himself but he's
now acting on behalf of his late wife
who never agreed to the terms which I
think is a really strong point I think
the lawyer is right here his wife never
signed up for the Disney Plus trial thus
she shouldn't be subjected to the
[Â __Â ] shackle and chains that
apparently every Disney plus subscriber
is now succumbed to uh the lawyer then
goes on to say the notion that terms
agreed to by a consumer when creating a
Disney Plus free trial account would
forever bar that consumer's right to a
jury trial and any dispute with any
Disney affiliate or subsidary is so
outrageously unreasonable and unfair as
to shock the judicial conscience it
really is exceptionally evil and from
what I've read here it's not exclusive
to Disney so apparently there was even a
time where they were going to get close
to protecting consumers from this kind
of [Â __Â ] with like these arbitration
clauses that get snuck into contracts
that you sign up for unknowingly because
it is unreasonable to expect anyone to
read all 65 pages of every terms and
condition for every service you sign up
for there's no human being on the planet
that has the hootspa to sit through and
read all of that but apparently that
ruling that was going to protect
consumers got [Â __Â ] in Congress so it
it's just corporations really do operate
on a different level than everything in
everyone else so no matter how much they
are pushed to stop this shady [Â __Â ] they
can always pay their way out of it so it
never actually sees the light of day and
they can continue to do the scummiest
things another quote here is most of the
companies in the US require mandatory
arbitration and allows them to buy and
llarge cut off much relief companies
love it but individuals who are harmed
by these corporations really don't have
any access to any form that would give
them relief as that's a real problem it
just limits consumers options it
protects companies by [Â __Â ] consumers
in the face the Supreme Court's view is
if you don't like it don't sign it which
is a super easy position to have for all
the troglodon Supreme Court cuz they're
so ancient and archaic that these
geriatric fossils don't sign up for
anything or any service cuz they don't
even know what a goddamn computer is
they're still learning about that
mystical m magical thing called the
cyers space and the internet so they
don't even know what the [Â __Â ] this is
all they need to know is what the
corporations tell them they need to know
but every normal person in the world all
has different services that they have to
sign up for I'm not talking about just
like entertainment services like no one
needs to have like a Netflix account or
anything or a epic games account or
something but even just like I remember
10 years ago when I was in my apartment
there was an online signup I had to do
that had pag upon Pages upon pages of
terms and conditions and I didn't read
through all of them I feel like most
people don't read through all of them
Banking online all types of services
that are literally required for most
normal people all have tons and tons of
terms and conditions and they are
probably sneaking in some truly heinous
[Â __Â ] and this story right here helps
shine a light on some of it and how
unreasonable it is and the Supreme Court
saying if you don't like it don't sign
up for it is just that's not realistic
it's it's just not at all but anyway
this [Â __Â ] is super horrible Disney Super
sucks that's about it see y
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
Film Theory: Is Disney+ Worth Signing Your Life Away?
Steam altered the terms of the sale; you'll be happy they altered it further!
Did Disney World finally fix Lightning Lane?
How JIOâs Masterplan Beat Disney & became the King of Indian OTT? | Business Case Study
TOUT SAVOIR SUR WALT DISNEY WORLD
Shanghai Disney Resort | An Inside Look
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)