"I would like to make one thing clear: I never explain anything."

August 14, 2024 2:28 PM

Disney wants wrongful-death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ (CNN, BBC, NPR) Court documents show that the company is trying to get the $50,000 lawsuit tossed because the plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for a one-month trial of the streaming service Disney+ in 2019, which requires trial users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of Piccolo’s deceased wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died of a reaction to severe food allergies.
posted by box (30 comments total)

God mode lawyering. Uncle Walt's frozen head overwhelmingly approves.
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 2:34 PM on August 14 [14 favorites]

I would never do such a thing, but this certainly incentivizes piracy for those of us who would like to watch Bluey without signing our rights away
posted by chainringtattoo at 2:39 PM on August 14 [54 favorites]

Ahh, so that's what the bottom of the slippery slope feels like.

"He is suing Disney for a sum in excess of $50,000 plus legal costs."

What an absolutely insane way to publicize to the world your negligence caused the death of someone in one of your parks. I hope the sum in excess, is *well* in excess.
posted by Static Vagabond at 2:43 PM on August 14 [53 favorites]

The law is an ass.
posted by senor biggles at 2:44 PM on August 14 [5 favorites]

It also is another great opportunity to contact congressfolk to urge them to act. They've made some attempts before, but maybe if we can manage a majority-Democrat Senate AND House, we can finish the job.

S.1376 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act at Congress.gov

House passes bill to end mandatory arbitration of legal disputes, Reuters, Daniel Wiessner - the Dem House passed the bill but it didn't make it through the Senate

This is a great time to call or fax your representatives, if you live in the US and have the time and energy to do that.

Thanks for posting this, box - I saw this headline earlier today and was pretty amazed that Disney would try this.
posted by kristi at 2:47 PM on August 14 [40 favorites]

Lot of retired judges probably really hate that house bill . .
posted by flamk at 2:53 PM on August 14 [6 favorites]

This is extra fucfun because it's about both forced arbitration and click-through EULAs that no one does read, no one should read, and no one can be expected to read.

"Wait, why are you harvesting my organs? I feel fine!"

"Oh, of course! You're entitled to that information. Let me see... Ah, your son— no, not Michael, it was Todd (super cute in those kindergarden graduation photos, by the way)— yes, Todd agreed to this as a condition for playing... 'GLITTER POOP GUN' on Roblox last year. He certainly got the value out of his side of that agreement! I see over twelve hours of play time! Anyway, it's all right here, see... oh, right, well we can get that in braille for you now."
posted by whatnotever at 3:22 PM on August 14 [17 favorites]

According to someone who's read Disney's response, they want out of the lawsuit because they neither own nor operate the restaurant. It's just on Epcot property. The Epcot EULA's mentioned because if they don't bring it up now, they can't bring it up later. Disney + is only mentioned in a timeline of interactions with the plaintiff. They're not claiming anything about the Disney + EULA.
posted by Spike Glee at 3:31 PM on August 14 [35 favorites]

If I'm the Disney CEO, I'm on the phone to the damn legal department right now saying shut the fuck up, apologize and give the man his damn money. Talk about the Streisand Effect: this is terrible PR.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 3:48 PM on August 14 [35 favorites]

Assuming what Spike Glee lays out is correct, then yeah, that's absolutely par for the course for Disney Legal. When I worked there they'd cover every base so tight for all eventualities that a mouse fart couldn't squeak out unnoticed.

And yes, it's hysterically bad PR because of the way the story is getting played out. (Also par for the course for Disney)
posted by drewbage1847 at 3:55 PM on August 14 [8 favorites]

Well, if you're gonna test out a wacky legal idea, might as well do it in one where the victim ate at a restaurant you don't own or operate, and fell ill in a different restaurant than is alleged the food was served. Assuming the NY Post article is correct (!), how likely is Disney to be found held liable in that situation? Are they also liable if you are allergic to Sephora makeup?
posted by pwnguin at 4:09 PM on August 14

Back when I was a baby engineer and went through the company orientation the story that got told to us was that each day around 10 people went to each individual park to generate a lawsuit. That was back before they moved super super hard into the "complete resort, never leave the property" way of being, so it's gotta be higher in the 30ish years since.
posted by drewbage1847 at 4:14 PM on August 14 [3 favorites]

“So you should ask yourself, with every decision that you make, is this good for the company?”
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 4:25 PM on August 14 [5 favorites]

This is the kind of PR you can usually only get if you're an org that ends in -ology. At this point, responsible or not, they should give this person ten million dollars and the key to the place just to make this go away.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:28 PM on August 14 [2 favorites]

and fell ill in a different restaurant than is alleged the food was served

The article states she fell ill between the restaurant she ate at and the one she collapsed in. Although, if they don't have control over the menu and the hiring as the lawsuit alleges, I could see them avoiding liability anyway.
posted by bashos_frog at 4:40 PM on August 14

Wondering if Disney Corp. is evil or if their legal dept. is evil—and is that a distinction without a difference?
posted by Flexagon at 4:50 PM on August 14 [1 favorite]

It'll be nice if their arbitration clause ends up seriously damaged, even if they still win the case for other reasons for legitimate reasons.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:57 PM on August 14 [2 favorites]

According to someone who's read Disney's response, they want out of the lawsuit because they neither own nor operate the restaurant. It's just on Epcot property. The Epcot EULA's mentioned because if they don't bring it up now, they can't bring it up later. Disney + is only mentioned in a timeline of interactions with the plaintiff. They're not claiming anything about the Disney + EULA.

Did that "someone" read past the first page of their motion to compel arbitration? Disney is arguing:

• Yes, that they shouldn't be in the lawsuit, but that is a throwaway line in the introduction. The motion is to compel arbitration for this dispute, not for releasing them as a defendant or summary judgement.
• In 2019, Piccolo created a Disney account while signing up for a Disney+ trial and thereby agreed to the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, which in turn contains a link to and incorporates the Disney Terms of Use, which either contains or links to a document containing a forced arbitration provision (unclear from their motion).
• In 2023, Piccolo used that account to purchase Epcot Center tickets.
• Therefore, the Disney Terms of Use, that say any disputes arising from his use of the account must be taken to arbitration, control.
• Also, btw, by agreeing to the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions, you represent that you are agreeing to them (and have the authority to do so) on behalf of everyone in your party.

So the headline of Disney trying to force arbitration based on a Disney+ trial four years ago isn't technically wrong but it is a little misleading.

There is no "Epcot EULA" that I am aware of; not sure where you got that from. Are you referring to the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions? They are not bringing that up to maintain it for appeal; they are making the direct argument that those terms mean that Piccolo's late wife also agreed to forced arbitration, through his acceptance of terms that included the link to the Disney Terms of Use. (hilariously, the Disney Terms of Use have their own top-level domain.)

However...

What Disney leaves out:

• The My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions, which one must agree to as part of buying tickets to the parks, do not contain a forced arbitration provision.
• They explicitly say both:
  • that disputes relating to anything occurring under this agreement, i.e. reservations and bookings, "must be filed and maintained exclusively in any court in Orange County, Florida having subject matter jurisdiction"; and
  • (stay with me, because this is the kicker) "In the event these Terms directly conflict with the applicable foregoing Disney Terms of Use, these Terms will prevail."
  (emphasis mine in both quotes)

So the forced arbitration provision in the Disney Terms of Use should be in direct conflict with the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions provision that all disputes must be heard by a court. The rest is just soundbites and pull quotes.
posted by tubedogg at 5:16 PM on August 14 [35 favorites]

I would love to see this case escalated and invalidate the whole concept of overriding waivers of liability in mandatory consumer contracts.
posted by Nelson at 5:59 PM on August 14 [6 favorites]

That is a great post title.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:51 PM on August 14

From the article:
“Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

So do I understand correctly that the outrageous thing here is not that Disney is trying to escape responsibility for this woman's death (they're not responsible, if that quote is correct ) but that they're trying to use this "you signed a contract with us so you can never sue us" argument?

Because that's an outrageous argument to make wether they're responsible or not?
posted by Zumbador at 9:02 PM on August 14 [3 favorites]

The law is supposed to be reasonable. EULA's are lengthy and often really hard to read. I already dislike Disney, now I dislike them more.
posted by theora55 at 10:21 PM on August 14

Because that's an outrageous argument to make wether they're responsible or not?
This is all lawyer-speak for "sue them, not us". It's actually polite if not heavy handed. If the above research is correct, take it to the local authorities and get a trial, but you're better off suing them "the tenants" than us "the landlords" because as for the major part of this... it's the county health inspectors and labor officials and such. We just rented them space, we have no real control over them any much as more than we do over the county legal/health/inspection stuff that we have for the things that *are* ours. Same rules and regulations apply, we just lease them space. Sue them, not us, maybe you'll win.
posted by zengargoyle at 10:26 PM on August 14 [1 favorite]

they'd cover every base so tight for all eventualities that a mouse fart couldn't squeak out unnoticed

Dear Mr 1847

It has come to our attention that you posted a comment on a public-facing web site that included the word "mouse". As you are aware or could reasonably be expected to be aware, that word is a Disney trade mark. Our records show that you failed to seek Disney's permission before applying it to your own product and that therefore, in accordance with clause 73.5.8(a).1 of the Florida White Boots Act, your house is now Disney's property. You have 48 hours from the date shown at the top of this courtesy note to vacate the premises. Direct all queries to the bulldozer operations team that you will find conveniently located outside what used to be your front door.

Cordially yours

S. McDuck
Head of Arbitration
posted by flabdablet at 10:48 PM on August 14 [4 favorites]

Mickey Mouse Is Now in the Public Domain | TIME. a case you would lose.

Now I want an old Mickey Mouse themed cartoon where he farts uncontrollably and becomes a master of flatulence art - Google Search,
posted by zengargoyle at 11:00 PM on August 14

Is there a zero or two missing from the recovery amount?

$50,000 is not worth Disney’s time. Pay it and move on.
posted by notyou at 6:43 AM on August 15

I don't think the amount is actually $50,000 or necessarily even close to it -- this is just the cutoff for circuit court jurisdiction as opposed to county civil court. So the complaint just says that they are asking for enough to be in that circuit court tier (despite CNN calling it a $50,000 suit at one point in the article).
posted by Turd Ferguson at 9:01 AM on August 15

Is the move to arbitration by almost every service/product provider I use because arbitration involves a) no jury, therefore lower awards, b) no or much less discovery, c) more privacy, d) some/none of the preceding?
posted by the sobsister at 9:22 AM on August 15

When arbitration goes right it's quicker, cheaper and can be a better resolution process. It is also more private but that's a mixed blessing: public court records are an important check on corporate abuse.

When arbitration goes bad it favors the companies significantly over individuals seeking redress. There's a lot of study on whether arbitration is really fair independent and results are mixed.

When arbitration is evil is when it's made mandatory rather than something both parties willingly consent to. And when it's snuck into clickwrap licenses. And when it's applied in appallingly abusive ways, like extending a streaming video contract to cover a wrongful death at a largely separate business.

There's recent proposed legislation to address some abuses of forced arbitration. I think it's had a fair amount of Democrat support but not enough to make it viable.
posted by Nelson at 9:30 AM on August 15

When arbitration goes bad it favors the companies significantly over individuals seeking redress. There's a lot of study on whether arbitration is really fair independent and results are mixed.

The fact that corporations overwhelmingly force consumers into arbitration tells you all you need to know about arbitration. It reliably "goes bad."

The point of a system is what it does.
posted by AlSweigart at 10:14 AM on August 15 [3 favorites]