DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[greeneyedchick]

Those Disney layers can be more creative than the creative side of the business. I have no opinion on the merits of the suit but claiming that one of those million page subscriber agreements that we all just click thru now covers every single thing that a company could be sued for is just...wow.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-ne...h-suit-tossed-because-of-disney-subscription/

Disney is trying to get a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a New York University doctor’s grieving husband tossed — because he signed up for the Disney+ streaming service years earlier, court papers said.

Kanokporn Tangsuan’s bereaved husband Jeffrey Piccolo is currently suing the theme park juggernaut claiming that she suffered a fatal allergic reaction shortly after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida last October.

But Disney is now claiming the $50,000 suit should be moved out of the courts because Piccolo agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the company when he first signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service back in 2019, court documents charge.

Piccolo’s attorneys, on their part, have slammed Disney’s latest motion as “preposterous” and “outrageously unreasonable.”

In the May 31 motion filed in Orange County, Fla. circuit court, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute — with the exception of small claims — to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

So if I understand this correctly...If I get hurt on a broken ride at one of the Disney parks and I have also subscribed to Disney+ at any time, then I cannot sue Disney for my injuries? That's super snaky!

 

[RivShore]

So if I understand this correctly...If I get hurt on a broken ride at one of the Disney parks and I have also subscribed to Disney+ at any time, then I cannot sue Disney for my injuries? That's super snaky!

That is what Disney lawyers are claiming - you can not sue, only go to arbitration.

The court has not ruled on the motion, but it should be quickly denied.

 

[crvetter]

So if I understand this correctly...If I get hurt on a broken ride at one of the Disney parks and I have also subscribed to Disney+ at any time, then I cannot sue Disney for my injuries? That's super snaky

Well purchasing a ticket includes the same clause so they would likely use that. I’m guessing they aren’t going that route strictly here because as I understand it they never used the ticket so maybe the clause doesn’t kick in until used.

 

[jade1]

$50,000 is the lawsuit?

 

[crvetter]

$50,000 is the lawsuit?

The article states the incorrect thing. You usually sue for less than 8,000 which is small claims, 8,000 to 50,000 which is County Civil Limits or over 50,000.

You don’t usually specify a specific amount but in this case they are suing for over 50,000. So the article writer missed the over part.

 

[RivShore]

The article states the incorrect thing. You usually sue for less than 8,000 which is small claims, 8,000 to 50,000 which is County Civil Limits or over 50,000.

You don’t usually specify a specific amount but in this case they are suing for over 50,000. So the article writer missed the over part.

FYI-They did miss it in the portion I clipped but yes, they do say "more than" 50k at the end of the full article.

 

[wabbott]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/d23-sequel-bonanza-revealed-disney-131500222.html

The Wrap

What D23’s Sequel Bonanza Revealed About Disney’s Future | Analysis
by Drew Taylor
Wed, August 14, 2024 at 8:15 AM CDT

 

[clarker99]

Those Disney layers can be more creative than the creative side of the business. I have no opinion on the merits of the suit but claiming that one of those million page subscriber agreements that we all just click thru now covers every single thing that a company could be sued for is just...wow.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/13/us-ne...h-suit-tossed-because-of-disney-subscription/

Disney is trying to get a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a New York University doctor’s grieving husband tossed — because he signed up for the Disney+ streaming service years earlier, court papers said.

Kanokporn Tangsuan’s bereaved husband Jeffrey Piccolo is currently suing the theme park juggernaut claiming that she suffered a fatal allergic reaction shortly after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida last October.

But Disney is now claiming the $50,000 suit should be moved out of the courts because Piccolo agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the company when he first signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service back in 2019, court documents charge.

Piccolo’s attorneys, on their part, have slammed Disney’s latest motion as “preposterous” and “outrageously unreasonable.”

In the May 31 motion filed in Orange County, Fla. circuit court, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute — with the exception of small claims — to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823916535032734053

Turns out this happened at Raglan Road which is not owned or operated by Disney.

 

[RivShore]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823916535032734053

Turns out this happened at Raglan Road which is not owned or operated by Disney.

As landlords, they would get caught up in suits like this, standard lawsuit procedure.

I was wondering if they were going to counter any of this bad publicity, which is suddenly everywhere - i.e. Yahoo Finance DIS quote has more than 3 articles about it on the first page (vs zero articles about IO2 breaking a record). What has happened to the IR and publicity departments??

Is that the company's entire statement? Because that response is shockingly lame, it appears that they are standing by their assertion that our agreement to use an app a thousand miles away from the parks applies to any liabilty the company may have anywhere and at anytime in the future. American Airlines recently had a lawyer try to blame the child victim of an incident on one of their planes and the company apologized and got rid of that outside law firm as soon as the bad publicity started. I looks like Disney just doubles down on it, more bad publicity, ahh who cares.

 

[clarker99]

As landlords, they would get caught up in suits like this, standard lawsuit procedure.

I was wondering if they were going to counter any of this bad publicity, which is suddenly everywhere - i.e. Yahoo Finance DIS quote has more than 3 articles about it on the first page (vs zero articles about IO2 breaking a record). What has happened to the IR and publicity departments??

Is that the company's entire statement? Because that response is shockingly lame, it appears that they are standing by their assertion that our agreement to use an app a thousand miles away from the parks applies to any liabilty the company may have anywhere and at anytime in the future. American Airlines recently had a lawyer try to blame the child victim of an incident on one of their planes and the company apologized and got rid of that outside law firm as soon as the bad publicity started. I looks like Disney just doubles down on it, more bad publicity, ahh who cares.

I am not a lawyer and really dont care to delve into this but seems there are 2 aspects of this:

1.Disney isnt responsible for that person dying, just the wealthiest that could be named. As you say, normal.

2. Terms of use. Missed in the NY Post article was The couple bought a Park ticket via MDE which uses same terms of service as D+. Are the terms of service a bit shady and very broad? I will assume, Yes. Sounds like the big thing is that the terms push everything to binding arbitration.

I am out on this convo from here. Not my area of expertise. Was just replying with a link to more info than the NY Post provided

 

[fatmanatee]

As landlords, they would get caught up in suits like this, standard lawsuit procedure.

I was wondering if they were going to counter any of this bad publicity, which is suddenly everywhere - i.e. Yahoo Finance DIS quote has more than 3 articles about it on the first page (vs zero articles about IO2 breaking a record). What has happened to the IR and publicity departments??

Is that the company's entire statement? Because that response is shockingly lame, it appears that they are standing by their assertion that our agreement to use an app a thousand miles away from the parks applies to any liabilty the company may have anywhere and at anytime in the future. American Airlines recently had a lawyer try to blame the child victim of an incident on one of their planes and the company apologized and got rid of that outside law firm as soon as the bad publicity started. I looks like Disney just doubles down on it, more bad publicity, ahh who cares.

The original NY Post story on this was misleading (IIRC they implied or stated that Raglan was owned by Disney) and the commentary on this whole thing with D+ might be misleading as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823917712613020092

 

[RivShore]

The original NY Post story on this was misleading (IIRC they implied or stated that Raglan was owned by Disney) and the commentary on this whole thing with D+ might be misleading as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823917712613020092

I don't have any problem with the company defending themselves against a lawsuit that IMO, Disney should not even be a part of and that may have no merit at all, even against Raglan. I have a problem with yet another piece of highly negative news that Disney does nothing to combat. We have to depend on some semi-random twitter dude to get the real story out there. Why didn't Disney include this in that statement and maybe even acknowledge that mentioning D+ ToS was a mistake? But for that matter, what the heck does an Epcot ticket have to do with an incident in DS?

My problem is not with Disney defending themselves in the lawsuit at all, my problem is with the broadening of a ToS to cover anything at anytime and any where in the world. We all click thru those things to get to where we need to go on the web or in the app under the assumption that it only applies to activities in the app or web. To broaden that will mean that the ToS we agreed to with the Target app or your supermarket app will restrict our right to sue for gross negligence in any of their stores - a shelving unit falls on your head while shopping at Target, you can only go to arbitration because you used our app once 3 years ago. I hate government intervention in the free market but this may need some legislation to put some guardrails around what or where ToS's apply.

 

[fatmanatee]

I don't have any problem with the company defending themselves against a lawsuit that IMO, Disney should not even be a part of and that may have no merit at all, even against Raglan. I have a problem with yet another piece of highly negative news that Disney does nothing to combat. We have to depend on some semi-random twitter dude to get the real story out there. Why didn't Disney include this in that statement and maybe even acknowledge that mentioning D+ ToS was a mistake?

It's an active lawsuit. They're not going to put out a lengthy statement about it at the risk of implicating themselves. They're certainly not going to put out a statement regarding said active lawsuit saying they've made a mistake with how their lawyers are handling it, particularly in response to a tabloid in NY that can't seem to get the story right.

 

[RivShore]

It's an active lawsuit. They're not going to put out a lengthy statement about it at the risk of implicating themselves. They're certainly not going to put out a statement regarding said active lawsuit saying they've made a mistake with how their lawyers are handling it, particularly in response to a tabloid in NY that can't seem to get the story right.

The story is everywhere now, so not just the NYP and all are saying pretty much the same thing.

Understood that they have to walk a fine line with an active case but maybe you should vet your lawyers nonsensical claims before the get submitted? American Airlines did just what you said, fired a law firm mid-case after the bad publicity started, so it can be done.

 

[fatmanatee]

The story is everywhere now, so not just the NYP and all are saying pretty much the same thing.

I think the fundamental disagreement here is that I don't care that it's everywhere and I think the story will be back to buried next week. The only person who gains from this staying in the news is the plaintiff's attorney, which might be why it's here in the first place. As I mentioned before, I don't think Disney benefits by drawing it out and their statement was appropriate.

Understood that they have to walk a fine line with an active case but maybe you should vet your lawyers nonsensical claims before the get submitted?

I think they were fine with it. Looks like it was an attempt to get the case dismissed without moving forward, not sure if it worked or not but probably not.

American Airlines did just what you said, fired a law firm mid-case after the bad publicity started, so it can be done.

Yes, it can be done when they hired an external legal firm that blamed a child for being recorded by an AA employee in the bathroom, they're extremely likely to lose and they're just managing the damages, which probably *increased* as a result of the stupid mistake the external firm made. That isn't exactly the same type of situation that Disney finds themselves in though, in a case they are far more likely to win though and would like to have dismissed as quickly as possible given the fact that they don't own the restaurant where this may have happened.

 

[wabbott]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/edgar-bronfman-prepares-bid-paramount-174540990.html

Edgar Bronfman prepares offer for National Amusements, source says
by Anirban Sen
Updated Thu, Aug 15, 2024, 9:35 PM GMT+1

 

[HokieRaven5]

Here you go @RivShore. The day something became public straight from the Company:

‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Becomes Highest-Grossing R-Rated Film Ever

Marvel Studios’ Deadpool & Wolverine has slashed its way through the box office to become the highest-grossing R-rated film in history.

The film — which has Ryan Reynolds’ loudmouth Deadpool teaming up with Hugh Jackman’s iconic Wolverine — has brought in $1,085.6 billion over just 23 days, which gives it the title for highest-grossing R-rated film of all time at the global box office.

 

[wabbott]

Interview with Josh D'Amaro herein.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-price-problem-ambitious-plans-090004585.html

CNN
Disney has a price problem. It has ambitious plans to fix that
by Natasha Chen
Updated Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 5:26 PM GMT

 

[irlandaise]

Interview with Josh D'Amaro herein.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-price-problem-ambitious-plans-090004585.html

CNN
Disney has a price problem. It has ambitious plans to fix that
by Natasha Chen
Updated Fri, Aug 16, 2024, 5:26 PM GMT

I'm not seeing anything in the article that even remotely hints at "ambitious plans" to fix the perceived pricing problem. Here's the section that directly addresses Disney's response:

To keep its customers coming through the gates, the company will keep providing a range of pricing and options, said Josh D’Amaro, chairperson of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, in an interview with CNN.

“What we will continue to do is make sure we provide as much access and flexibility as we possibly can, so as many of our fans can experience these things as possible,” D’Amaro said.

In response to criticism about high costs, Disney has consistently touted lower-priced ticket options and “value season” deals at its resort hotels to allow families to visit, even if they’re on a tight budget.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Judge Grants FuboTV Injunction, Blocking Venu From Launching

The sports streaming joint venture between Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery will have to wait.

A federal judge has blocked the planned Aug. 23 launch of Venu, a collaboration between the three media giants.

FuboTV in February sued over the planned app, and argued the launch should be enjoined for antitrust reasons. Judge Margaret Garnett agreed.

“t appears to the Court that Fubo is likely to succeed on its claims that by entering into the JV, the JV Defendants will substantially lessen competition and restrain trade in the relevant market in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act,” she wrote in a 69-page decision unveiling the somewhat shocking order. “The JV Defendants and their officers, directors, employees, agents, and all other persons acting on their behalf are hereby enjoined and restrained from launching the JV pending final adjudication of the merits of this case or further order of the Court.”

The three media giants may seek emergency relief. A lawyer for WBD argued earlier this week that “a preliminary injunction would terminate the joint venture.” Fubo had argued that the lack of one would doom its business.

Fox, Disney, and WBD released a joint statement after Garnett’s ruling.

“We respectfully disagree with the court’s ruling and are appealing it,” the statement said. “We believe that Fubo’s arguments are wrong on the facts and the law, and that Fubo has failed to prove it is legally entitled to a preliminary injunction. Venu Sports is a pro-competitive option that aims to enhance consumer choice by reaching a segment of viewers who currently are not served by existing subscription options.”