The lawsuit makes the claim that Disney has control over the menu, hiring, and training. We’re not going to see proof of that readily on the internet.
Disney could claim that they are blameless because they do not have control over the menu, the hiring, or the training. That is a far more normal response (if true) than claiming the plaintiff gave up all rights to sue because he accepted the terms of a free trial of Disney+ 5 years ago.
And let me add a hearty, “AMEN!”, to that! 
They have little flags to denote that allergies are absent. The flag was missing and the couple questioned it and were assured it was okay and she died. Not only is that civil negligence, I think you could make the argument that someone should be charged with manslaughter.
Can you clarify? Do you mean:
“the couple has little flags to denote their allergies”, or
“the restaurant has little flags to denote that food is allergen-free”?
From the article I linked to, they apparently put little flags in dishes that are allergen modified and their plate was missing some of these flags. They asked about this and were told it was okay to eat.
And also because Disney always insists on absolute control over everything associated with them.
You can claim pretty much anything in a lawsuit.
It was more like 5 minutes of looking through the Disney parks and Disney Springs dining websites and 5 minutes worth of Google. So keeping in mind this is all very cursory…
One example is Disney parks, as far as I know, has an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola; no Pepsi brands. The restaurants at Disney Springs seem to only offer CC brands, or at least no Pepsi brands are listed in their menus on their DS web pages. I don’t think it is usual for a generic mall landlord to dictate what specific brands its lessees can sell. It’s possible that the (alleged) lack of Pepsi brands implies that Disney controls, to some degree, the DS restaurant menus. I might be very wrong about this one (5 minutes remember), but a conspicuous lack of any Pepsi brands is eyebrow-raising.
Another example is if you want to make a reservation at some (most? all?) of the restaurants at DS from the DS web page, you aren’t redirected to the restaurant’s own web page, you are sent to your “MyDisney” account, which tells you to “Log into Walt Disney World.” For example, if you want to make a reservation at Raglan Road, which is not a Disney brand, you aren’t kicked to the Raglan Road web page where you can make a reservation with OpenTable, you are herded to the MyDisney app. That persistence of keeping you inside the Disney experience (as opposed to the OpenTable experience, or even the Raglan Road experience) seems unusual if Disney is just a simple landlord.
Maybe the most damning (IMHO) is that all of the restaurant’s DS web pages I checked specifically instruct guests concerned about allergies to “speak to a cast member” about allergy-friendly meals. As far as I know, Disney is the only company that refers to its employees as “cast members.” Job openings at Raglan Road on linkedin do not refer to employees as “cast members.” The Raglan Road DS web page asks guests with allergies “to speak with a Special Diets Trained Cast Member upon arrival at the location.” I don’t think Raglan Road employees are Disney employees, but that seems to imply that either Disney employees are stationed at DS restaurants (another unusual move for a landlord) or that DS restaurant employees are trained in some manner by Disney.
So here again I want to point out that this was just some basic searching. Who knows how accurate any of it is. Maybe they’re not, but on the face of it, Disney seems to me to be more than just a landlord at Disney Springs. YMMV.
So you agree that this filing isn’t the place for the details, you just wish it had more details. I’m okay with that.
I heard Coke gave Disney a more or less cost deal- since it was great advertising. If you can get the same deal, why go for the more expensive product?
Disney is playing their “We’re very sorry that the public found out about this” card.
From the article:
I presume this will put a stop to the silly tangent about Disney having no involvement.
That’s fine, but it would be more evidence, in my opinion, that Disney Springs isn’t just a normal landlord. How many other high profile malls does Coke offer at-cost deals to? My guess is not many.
Yes, I’m guessing the SOP for the Disney legal department is to move all claims against them into arbitration. Note they are “waiving” their rights in this case, in all their magnanimity.
~Max
Disney abandons arbitration defense:
Love the “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” (translation “We need bad publicity to go away ASAP”
Brian
(also notice they didn’t say they cant use it in the future, they are just waiving it in this case)
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that was a major reason it insisted on arbitration in the first place; if it lets one prosecution go to trial, it runs the risk of future litigants claiming, “Well, you didn’t say anything about arbitration for that one case…”
It is not silly at all. Disney just dropped a questionable legal tactic.
I’ll bet Disney’s lawyers are really kicking themselves for not going with the, “We don’t own the restaurant,” defense first, instead of jumping straight to “Signing up for Disney+ means we can legally kill your wife,” defense.
Then we are forced to ask if Disney has claimed they have no involvement in the running of this restaurant. When my company gets sued, if we had no involvement in the underlying matter, we just have our lawyers draw up a response saying that, and the case (or our involvement in it) gets dropped.
It’s probably the single most straightforward response to a lawsuit that exists. “We have nothing to do with the plaintiff’s problems.” And it happens all the time because plaintiffs are always adding in anyone and everyone that is tangentially related to their loss.
Is it just me, or did a goalpost just break the sound barrier?
If they did that, they would have to abandon the other argument (as they have now done). The question of jurisdiction comes before merits of the case.
ETA: And to clarify, moving a case to arbitration is not the same as saying we can legally kill your wife. Arbitration isn’t inherently one-sided, although some say companies that do lots of arbitration gain an advantage just by being more familiar with the rules and such. And there is a price/fee factor which can be a barrier to entry for some disputes, but probably not wrongful death. The main thing in this kind of case is that the proceedings and judgement in arbitration are often secret, and therefore can’t become a P.R. thing or part of a class action suit.
~Max