[lesuorac]

> then it still feels like the plaintiff has misrepresented what was on this website. Specifically the plaintiff says that the menu claimed items were "allergen-free", when in actuality the disclaimer specifically says the restaurant does not claim that.

Well, while the website definitely puts a lot of distance on allergen-free; if you can't offer a food allergen-free then you shouldn't. Same as if you can't take the bones out of a chicken wing; don't offer boneless wings.

However, if you go to the restaurant in-person and you ask the server who asks the chef and they both say it can be done allergen-free on multiple requests I think it's safe to safe that the website's disclaimer is overriden. Which is what the lawsuit claims [1] (I wish I could get a courtlistener link but I had no success [2]).

[1]: https://www.scribd.com/document/708687171/Raglan-Road-Lawsui...

[2]: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Disney&type=o&order_by=scor...

[caddemon]

Sure that overrides the disclaimer for the restaurant, and I'm inclined to agree with you there because every restaurant has some disclaimer like this that if enforced would make any "allergen-free" claims worthless everywhere.

But that would still make Disney less liable, because the in person conversation with staff/chef has nothing to do with Disney here.

Although it is interesting that the restaurants operated by others still use the "cast member" language. I do think Disney tries to have a bit of an illusion that everything on property including Disney springs is them. I still wouldn't consider it enough legally here but there is at least an argument about assumption of oversight.