FYI: Be careful if you have Disney+

[fly1111]

I heard about this and I was really surprised Disney is trying this. Last year, around October, a lady doctor ate food at Disney Springs (owned by Disney) but at a restaurant in Disney but run by 3rd party (tenants of Disney). The husband filed a suit against Disney, all Disney had to say was that the restaurant is run by their tenant, so the matter should be taken to them....simple, case closed.

But, Disney did an asinine thing, they went on to say that since the husband of the lady doctor (who died due to allergic reaction to nuts IIRC, she had told the staff of the restaurant to ensure that her dish was free of nuts) had signed a Disney+ agreement, he can't sue Disney for anything. That means, Disney can basically use that to cover any accident or misadventure that has happened, or will happen on any of their property, you can't sue them.

Imagine if you're on their cruise ship, or at Disneyland or Disney World (and possibly anywhere Disney owns), and something happened to you or a loved one, sorry, you can't sue them because you happen to have Disney+. The case will probably be brought up before a judge to decide or adjudicate ... I'm curious as to whether Disney would be allowed to hide behind TOS for Disney+. That the case has nothing to do with Disney, but rather the tenant is obvious, but hey, I ish layman hor, so dunno any law stuff.

Sharing your source will make your claim more credible

 

[Cobra!]

Third, even if the Court were to consider the substantive part of WDPR’s untimely Motion, it is based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial enjoyed by them and any future Estate to which they are associated, and will instead have agreed (on behalf of other survivors and the estate itself) to arbitrate any and all disputes against any and all Disney entities and affiliates, no matter how far removed from use of the Disney+ streaming service, including personal injury and wrongful death claims. As can be seen from the prior sentence, this argument borders on the surreal.

haha

 

[Gixxerfied]

lady doctor didn't carry epi pen?

About 45 minutes after finishing their dinner, Tangsuan had difficulty breathing while out shopping, collapsed and eventually died at the hospital, despite self-administering an EpiPen during the allergic reaction, according to the lawsuit.

 

[thisisnotme1212]

sarki immunitys cards playeds bys disneys

 

[buttbERry]

if u go to a mall and ate at their restaurant got daiji u find restaurant owner or find the mall?

 

[Gaminator]

Sharing your source will make your claim more credible

Bro, I wouldn't pull out something like this from my butt lah, besides, in these days of 'Google', simply type in "Disney, doctor, death, lawsuit" and you'd see, Besides, @ctan86 bro has already furnished a link, but in case you'd missed it:
https://pix11.com/news/disney-argue...cause-plaintiff-signed-up-for-a-disney-trial/

Here's what came up when I typed in those keywords in the 'Google search engine' ....
https://www.google.com/search?q=dis...1NzA2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Also consider this, Disney wants to cover itself with this Disney+ clause, imagine when Disney cruise ship(s) come to Sg, anything happen on board their ship(s), even IF their crew members are fully responsible, you're SOL. Or, that's what Disney wants, hence because US law is so effed up, it could be possible. and other countries (like Sg) would just go along with it.

That's why a US Federal judge in the US has to adjudicate it, and hopefully slam Disney for this attempt at shielding themselves with their Disney+ TnC. Remember, Disney want their TnC to be applied even AFTER you've given up Disney+, even for those who'd signed up for a trial period, that's absolutely scummy!

Heck, I also agreed to it because of a recent Singtel bundled Disney+ deal, but I don't plan to ever support Disney by going to any of their attractions (went to Disneyland in Anaheim 2-3 times at the height of it greatness (when Splash Mountain was there, and 'racist' song like 'Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah' can be heard playing) nor will I ever go on an overpriced cruise on their liners.

 

[samferguson]

Disney is owned in whole by Shylock, the Merchant of Venice.

 

[Gaminator]

Disney is owned in whole by Shylock, the Merchant of Venice.

Actually, can't say for sure, Disney is owned via shares/stock, with Vanguard and Blackrock having a good portion, but a vast majority of their shares held by 'others' whatever that means.

Disney has gone down this scummy route of targeting children (in their LGBTQIA++++ agenda), censoring just about anything THEY consider racist (and white people are included), racist hirings, is filled with activists (hence the drop in the quality of their movies, hire without really vetting peeps for their parks, etc. The man who's taken them on this route is none other than Bob Iger.....

 

[SG SUPERMAN]

I heard about this and I was really surprised Disney is trying this. Last year, around October, a lady doctor ate food at Disney Springs (owned by Disney) but at a restaurant in Disney but run by 3rd party (tenants of Disney). The husband filed a suit against Disney, all Disney had to say was that the restaurant is run by their tenant, so the matter should be taken to them....simple, case closed.

But, Disney did an asinine thing, they went on to say that since the husband of the lady doctor (who died due to allergic reaction to nuts IIRC, she had told the staff of the restaurant to ensure that her dish was free of nuts) had signed a Disney+ agreement, he can't sue Disney for anything. That means, Disney can basically use that to cover any accident or misadventure that has happened, or will happen on any of their property, you can't sue them.

Imagine if you're on their cruise ship, or at Disneyland or Disney World (and possibly anywhere Disney owns), and something happened to you or a loved one, sorry, you can't sue them because you happen to have Disney+. The case will probably be brought up before a judge to decide or adjudicate ... I'm curious as to whether Disney would be allowed to hide behind TOS for Disney+. That the case has nothing to do with Disney, but rather the tenant is obvious, but hey, I ish layman hor, so dunno any law stuff.

Actually quite stupid for Disney to try to dismiss this lawsuit by using disney+ subscription as the reason

imagine if they really get it dismiss, how many millions subscribers will cancel their subscription because of this

they only think about now and not the repercussions

 

[samferguson]

BTW the cruise ship is registered in which country? If accidents happened in open sea gg. US is not a signatory of UN Convention of Law of the Ocean.

 

[Mecisteus]

Heng I paid for cheap cheap annual Disney+ subscription.

Not too concerned about all this.

 

[kan-kon]

if true, this is really screw up..

i think some lawyers (or law makers) going to have a big hoo-ha over this..

it's like having a single agreement to screw all subscribers no matter what the conditions..

 

[samloi]

dont think this clause will be effective....
Else can legally scam/cheat liao.

 

[wongkc]

Unlikely this is a true event...

It is highly unlikely they can use Disney+ clause to absorb their responsibility at their Disneyland theme parks... if it is true... pretty sure a lot of pple will make noise or stop their subscriptions...

Even in Singapore... even if you sign those indemnity forms that schools required parents to sign for school trips... it does not absorb them of ALL responsibility... if it is their negligence they can still be sued...

TS has to be careful not to spread such accusations without any evidences... suggest you remove this thread if u are unable to support your story...

 

[coldware]

They just want to threaten you to withdraw the lawsuit..
If it's so black and white need lawyers/judge for what?

Might as well Apple say your organ belongs to them in their T&C, you have to press accept to use the phone then your organ belongs to them? Ridiculous.

 

[Gaminator]

if true, this is really screw up..

i think some lawyers (or law makers) going to have a big hoo-ha over this..

it's like having a single agreement to screw all subscribers no matter what the conditions..

That's why in a YT vid I'd seen on this, the host was saying he used to believe that Disney lawyers were among the best in the world, but this over-reach in their TnC, by also stepping into this lawsuit with that Disney+ TnC cover, they'd shown their scummy hands. It wasn't necessary because it involved their tenant(s), the restaurant was sited on their property and that was it.

Disney should have stopped at that, but no, they overstepped it by immediately using the Disney+ TnC to blanket cover themselves. Although it's good that this'd happened, because it exposes how scummy Disney is, and morally bankrupt Disney as a whole is.

 

[ChinTuaKi]

I suggest you subscribe to Disney+ to improve your command of English.

 

[junjie433]

Unlikely this is a true event...

It is highly unlikely they can use Disney+ clause to absorb their responsibility at their Disneyland theme parks... if it is true... pretty sure a lot of pple will make noise or stop their subscriptions...

Even in Singapore... even if you sign those indemnity forms that schools required parents to sign for school trips... it does not absorb them of ALL responsibility... if it is their negligence they can still be sued...

TS has to be careful not to spread such accusations without any evidences... suggest you remove this thread if u are unable to support your story...

I googled and found It is in the news....

Quoted"
The company argues Piccolo had agreed to settle any lawsuits against Disney out of court through the arbitration process when he signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019 and acknowledged that he had reviewed the fine print.

“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause," the company wrote in its motion. “The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’.”


Disney also notes in its response that Piccolo agreed to a similar arbitration provision when he created an account on Disney's website and app ahead of the ill-fated theme park visit.

But Piccolo's lawyer, in a response filed earlier this month, argued that it was “absurd” to believe that the more than 150 million subscribers to Disney+ have waived all rights to sue the company and its affiliates in perpetuity — even if their case has nothing to do with the popular streaming service.

“The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement,” Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, wrote in the Aug. 2 filing.
"
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory...-death-suit-tossed-plaintiff-signed-112845643

 

[lbcben]

Heng I watch content from youTube or bilibili
Got video got clothes or not, latest movie or not, all in legal platform.
No one can touch me

 

[GoodBetterBest]

I read that it's not just the disney plus but when he purchase the ticket to Disney through online, there was also this clause.

But I think such clauses can be contested in court. If not, then any company can absolve itself from any negligence. Stretch it abit. Envisage if the contract says the consumer will not raise any dispute through court or arbitration or in any other form. Would the court allow that ?