Disney and the allergic guest
This one was a real eye-opener and good example of how companies try to use the terms and conditions against customers. So, as I mentioned previously, terms and conditions most often include an arbitration or “no sue” section.
https://disneytermsofuse.com/english
Well, here was a tragedy where a patron died from an allergic reaction and DIsney legal made the claim that because the husband had once signed up for a Disney trial membership. Currently, there is no trial Disney Plus membership available.
When he agreed to the terms and conditions, he agreed to arbitration and Disney argued he did not have a right to sue. The trial membership was in 2019, the meal tragic allergy reaction was 2023. Furthermore, this man signed up for Disney plus for the trial period, that long since was closed or passed.
This does beg the question: What is the retention or timeframe once a terms and conditions is signed? Doesn’t it end when the trial membership ends or is it indefinite, with no limitations?
However, just the FACT Disney would try for arbitration over a day in court using the terms and conditions does raise an alarm… at least a red flag! From the BBC article posted August 20, 2024:
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of a restaurant after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction following a meal at Disney World, in Florida.Disney had argued the case should instead go to arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Mr Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019.
But, following a backlash, it has decided the matter can now be heard in court.
