Making a weak legal argument that is bound to highlight the heartlessness of a corporation that tries to be famously accommodating and friendly to guests is a move that should have been caught before the argument was filed.
How much in goodwill and PR work did it cost them to make an argument that would have saved them maybe a million dollars in the unlikely event it worked.
There’s a reason that corporations will often settle cases that they are legally in the right for, and cost benefit analyses are a huge part of that.
"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.
This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.
> Note that this allegedly vengeful former employee also risked public health and safety. By editing the menus to suggest that certain items were safe for people with peanut allergies when they weren’t, he risked people having life-threatening anaphylactic incidents. There is no allegation that anyone was actually harmed or injured, however, as Disney detected the alterations before menus could be sent out to restaurants
https://databreaches.net/2024/10/30/fbi-investigated-disney-...
Fewer than 1% of allergy incidents result in death, which can't be said for drunk driver crashes.
This would be programming a machine to print "non-alcoholic" on alcoholic beer in such an analogy about drunk drivers.
From [1]:
> It is generally agreed that the essential ingredients of any crime are (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), accompanied by (2) a certain state of mind (mens rea).
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-law/The-elements-o...
For drunk driving there definitely is mens rea. A drunk driver did intend to get in their car to drive. Whether or not they intended to create grave risk to life is up for debate.
I can't go shooting cans in my backyard and pretend I'm not risking my neighbors lives.
The usual split in levels of intent depend on jurisdiction but this is a good summary from Wikipedia on the (general) US system application of mens rea that is easy for me to paste, so:
Negligently: a "reasonable person" ought to be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that is a "gross deviation" from a normal standard of care.
Recklessly: the actor "consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" in "gross deviation" from a normal standard of care.
Knowingly: the actor is "practically certain" that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.
Purposefully: the actor consciously engages in conduct and "desires" the result. The Supreme Court has not found a large difference between purposeful and knowing conduct, not only in theory but also in application.
Drunk driving is reckless behaviour for anyone who knows what being drunk is.
I assume that the software probably controls all menus, both digital and printed.
[1] https://databreaches.net/2025/01/13/former-disney-employee-a...
derektank•3d ago
Endangering third parties in an effort to take revenge on your former employer is sociopath territory.
kayodelycaon•3d ago
I don't think that really does. I think it's common human behavior to not think about the third parties you're actually endangering and only focusing on who you're trying to hurt.
We don't like to think of ourselves that way but it's relatively easy to push buttons on a human and get them to do things we would regard as "sociopathic" with out the person themselves being a sociopath. See On Killing by Dave Grossman.
JumpCrisscross•3d ago
Right. That’s sociopathic hate. Note that OP didn’t say psychopathic, which is something one is born with.
esalman•3d ago
tinix•3d ago
people have been misusing the term cybernetic for a while now, I've noticed...
tinix•3d ago
people have been misusing the term cybernetic for a while now, I've noticed...
gruez•3d ago
Despite the word "cyber", it doesn't refer to brain implants or computers.
adolph•3d ago
The Dan Davies book “The Accountability Machine” [0] makes the link between corps and cybernetics through early business author/consultants like Stafford Beer [1].
0. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo252799...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
esalman•2d ago
Corporations function as systems designed for efficiency and goal achievement, often prioritizing these over human qualities like empathy or creativity.
maronato•3d ago
xyst•3d ago
There are ways to kill a corporation without the need to use the same playbook as corporations (using others as pawns to get a point across).
ycombinatrix•2d ago
brutal_chaos_•2d ago