Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms

Scope of Disney’s Arbitration Argument

• Disney moved to dismiss / stay a wrongful-death suit, arguing that the widower’s 2019 Disney+ free-trial ToS (with an arbitration clause) governs this dispute.
• The clause reportedly covers “all disputes” concerning “Disney Products” and “services in any media format or channel.”
• Many commenters find it absurd that a streaming ToS could govern a later, unrelated physical injury/death; some see it as a potential “test case” on how far ToS can reach.

Facts & Confusion About the Venue

• The death followed an allergen reaction after dining at Raglan Road in Disney Springs, a free-entry mall on Disney property.
• Multiple corrections: Disney Springs is not inside a ticketed park; Raglan Road is run by a separate company (Disney is landlord).
• Disney republishes menus and allows reservations on its own site/app; debate over whether this makes it more than “just a landlord.”
• Archived menu text shows extensive allergen disclaimers; some argue the plaintiff mischaracterized “allergen‑free” claims, others say in-person assurances by staff override boilerplate disclaimers.

Legal Debates: Contracts, Arbitration, and Strategy

• Many argue the arbitration clause should not apply:
  • It’s tied to a different product (Disney+ vs a third‑party restaurant).
  • It targets the husband, while he sues on behalf of the deceased’s estate.
  • It’s unconscionable to waive court access for serious injury/death via a generic clickwrap.
• Comparisons made to EU consumer rules, where such broad clauses would likely be void or limited.
• Others note corporate defendants routinely invoke arbitration to delay and wear down plaintiffs; denial can still yield years of appeals and stays (with examples from California and federal practice).
• A few defenders say Disney’s lawyers are “doing their job” by raising every arguable defense; critics counter this crosses into misrepresentation and abuse of process.

Broader Concerns About ToS and Corporate Power

• Widespread condemnation of pre‑dispute forced arbitration and “fine print” that ordinary consumers cannot meaningfully read or negotiate.
• Fears that if Disney’s theory succeeds, any prior online agreement (Google, Uber, Tesla, etc.) could be used to shield companies from unrelated tort suits.
• Some call for boycotts/canceling Disney+, others are skeptical that consumer backlash will materially hurt Disney.

Allergies, Responsibility, and Risk

• Separate thread on severe food allergies:
  • Some argue people with life‑threatening allergies should avoid restaurants entirely; others reject this as unreasonable and blame lax restaurant practices.
  • General agreement that kitchens are error‑prone and true “allergen‑free” service is extremely hard, but still a duty when staff explicitly assure safety.