Disney wrongful death lawsuit over allergy highlights danger of fine print

I&#x27;m just so baffled by this entire situation. The man&#x27;s wife had an allergy which the restaurant workers allegedly reassured they can accommodate for, and then they managed to include enough allergens that her epipen did nothing. In response to this, Disney lawyers are arguing the man has no right to a wrongful death suit partly because he signed up for a Disney+ trial on his PlayStation 5 years ago (which included an arbitration clause)<p>Whatever amount the man is asking for surely can&#x27;t come close to the reputational harm this situation is causing Disney. Disney&#x27;s argument also shows being a pirate is the legally safer option here because you never have to accept any arbitration clause!

So Disney is &quot;arguing that he agreed to settle any disputes with the entertainment giant and any of its affiliates out of court when he signed up for a free trial of its streaming service Disney+&quot; for a case about &quot;the death of his wife at a restaurant at Walt Disney World&quot;.<p>If this argument is entertained by the courts <i>at all</i> - the likelihood of which the article seems to show varied opinions on - it would be just one more to add to the list of why Megacorporations should not be a thing at all, even if they do not have a monopoly on one particular industry.

The jury should award punitive damages based on this tactic alone.

this will backfire on disney spectacularly, but as others have highlighted they probably are cornered into making this argument lest they never be able to make it again. Doesn&#x27;t make it any less absurd.

The movements of &quot;fuck it, burn it all down&quot; are fed by this river of injustice and its raindrops Can virtue signal all day, but when the chips are down, the message that goes out is &quot;This country needs a hard reset by violent revolution.&quot;

Disney shouldn’t be in the restaurant business.