[hangsi]

Arguably Crowdstrike's loss was due to a flaw in their product rather than PR.

Disney's product (though not their core, I would argue) allegedly killed this poor woman - however it is the lawyers' behaviour, not the death itself, that is an additional PR liability for Disney; death from an allergy is tragic, but could have potentially happened at any restaurant in the country. Only Disney (and a select few other large corps) could pull this particular bad act in defence.

As an aside, the entire line of argument from Disney is an absurd legal fiction. No reasonable person reads terms and conditions, and so they should not be bound by the terms. I hold a weak hope that this case is bad PR for the practice as a whole that raises the profile of this injustice.

[alt227]

Disneys product did not kill this woman.

Disney own the mall, where a resturant chain rented a unit from them. The mall is free to enter and does not require buying a ticket from Disney. The 3rd party resturant hired the staff, made the menu, cooked the food and served the guests. Nothing to do with Disney at all.

The only part disney has in it is they published the restuarants menu on the malls website, which reads 'Allergen Free'.

This is the basis for the entire lawsuit.

[benterix]

> The only part disney has in it is they published the restuarants menu on the malls website, which reads 'Allergen Free'.

And this should be their line of defense, not "but you clicked on a trial of a streaming service 5 years ago".