Disneyland's DEADPOOL Takes A Shot At Recent Disney+ Terms & Conditions Lawsuit Controversy

Disney is such a horrible company.

This was misreported by a lot of outlets as "Man can't sue because he signed up for Disney +" rather than "Disney alleges man can't sue because he signed up for Disney +".

Hard believe who makes jokes actor playing Deadpool make stuff up as he goes along , does company write this stuff make sure it’s appropriate and be approved

Are we sure this isn't another Tom/Colin Hanks situation and they've actually got Ryan Reynolds' brother Bryan to play Disneyland Deadpool?

Surprised that joke was allowed (if it indeed got an official greenlight) but the whole situation involving that case confuses me.

The most concrete opinion I have on the matter is that that specific clause in the terms and conditions shouldn't exist and it shouldn't be legal for any corporation or entity to include rules stating that customers forfeit their right to take legal action if they use or purchase a product or service. It's disgraceful and disgusting - by American standards (not that I'm American) it seems to be highly unconstitutional and by geopolitical standards it seems to be a massive contravention of not just basic consumer rights but human rights in general.

As far as the specific case, that's where I get a bit more confused, because from what I've read the person who died from the allergic reaction caused by the negligence of the restaurant in question was eating in a restaurant that isn't actually owned by Disney but was renting premises at one of Disney's amusement parks, and it seems Disney are using that specific clause in the Disney+ T's&C's as a very questionable loophole to try and protect themselves and deny liability in something that they consider not to be their fault but rather the fault of the restaurant. So the question is, if that's the case, are Disney liable as the landlords of the restaurant, or are Disney a third party with little to no involvement?

Either way I think it's incredibly shitty of them to use the Disney+ T's&C's to try and weasel their way out of this situation, which is surely causing even more undue stress and pain for the family of the victim. If Disney are indeed not liable then surely that's something that should have been easily provable in court, and Disney themselves could've been helpful in ensuring the restaurant faced the appropriate consequences for what happened.

Basically, if my understanding of any of this was correct, this was an instance where Disney, even if they were only tangentially involved in the case, could have done some good and tried to help the victim's family get some form of justice or at the very least compensation from the restaurant by using their position as both the restaurant's landlords AND the biggest media corporation on the planet; instead they chose to use an already morally objectionable clause found in a completely different part of their business to effectively dismiss not only their involvement in the case, but to suggest the case and the victim's life were unimportant.