Disney Allergy Lawsuit is Crazy

Summary

The 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

• 😡 The speaker expresses strong criticism towards Disney, considering it one of the most evil companies on the planet.
• 👹 The speaker humorously suggests that Disney's board of directors might be filled with villains, including Mickey Mouse and Lucifer.
• 📜 The script discusses a lawsuit involving a woman who had an allergic reaction and died after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant.
• 🤯 Disney argues that a Disney Plus trial agreement signed by the woman's husband in 2019 could affect the lawsuit's validity.
• 🍽 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.
• 🚫 Despite the assurances, the woman suffered an allergic reaction after eating the food, leading to her death.
• 💔 The husband is suing Disney for negligence, but Disney claims the lawsuit should be dismissed due to the terms of the Disney Plus trial.
• 🤔 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.
• 📖 The script mentions that such arbitration clauses are common in contracts, often unnoticed by consumers who skip through terms and conditions.
• 🏛️ 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.