I haven’t had time to read through all the additional comments, so my apologies if this was already brought up…
As you note, Disney has more liability here than that of simply a landlord. Information about restaurants in their theme park / mall area make the assertion that allergen food can be prepared at the restaurants.
This implies two things:
- One conditional term to renting a location in Disney’s space, the restaurant has to agree to be able to make allergen free food.
- Disney takes commercially reasonable steps to ensure lease holders abide by the terms of their lease, including verifying that food can be made allergen free.
The fact that Disney added a disclaimer to the website that they cannot guarantee food is allergen free after the suit implies that these two conditions exist. They may not, but I would be surprised if Disney were laissez-faire about the restaurants in their themed spaces. (Disney Hooters, anyone?)
Could the plaintiffs win on these points? It depends. Would a reasonable person, booking a vacation through Disney, checking meal options on a Disney website, and relying on statements made on said website, assume allergen free food were available and would be prepared appropriately? Would a reasonable person be able to assume Disney took appropriate steps to ensure allergen free foods were available and prepared properly, even if the restaurant wasn’t owned and operated by Disney, but operating on leased space from Disney which Disney claimed restaurants in said space could prepare allergen free food? Maybe? Depends on the Judge/jury.
But Disney has more liability than just a landlord, which is why they didn’t file motion to be removed from the lawsuit, and tried to arbitrate using a Disney+ arbitration clause. And got clobbered for it, because it is an unexpectedly slimy thing for the “happiest place on earth” to do.
