A new class action lawsuit has been filed against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, alleging that the company’s Disability Access Service (DAS) policies discriminate against individuals with physical disabilities. The complaint, led by plaintiff Trisha Malone, claims that Disney’s DAS program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and other privacy and consumer protection laws. A copy of the unfiled Complaint is embedded below.

The lawsuit focuses on Disney’s decision to limit DAS eligibility primarily to individuals with developmental disabilities, such as autism, while excluding those with physical disabilities. It also alleges that Disney forces applicants to disclose sensitive medical information in public settings, violating privacy laws, and requires applicants to agree to restrictive and misleading terms and conditions.

This case raises questions about the inclusivity and legality of Disney’s current approach to accommodating disabled guests at its California parks, with potentially significant implications for accessibility at theme parks nationwide.

There have been many complaints since Disney’s DAS updates in June 2024 from park-goers who were previously eligible for the DAS system but no longer qualified. Disney set out to curb abuse in the system, but many allege they went too far and became too restrictive, hurting those that need the service.

Understanding Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS)

Disney’s Disability Access Service (DAS) is a program designed to assist guests who are unable to wait in traditional attraction queues due to a disability. The system allows eligible individuals to request a return time for an attraction, enabling them to enjoy other activities instead of standing in line. DAS is available at Walt Disney World, Disneyland Resort and Disney California Adventure and is promoted as a way to provide equitable access to guests with disabilities.

In June 2024, Disney implemented changes to the DAS program, narrowing the eligibility criteria. The updated policy focuses on accommodating guests with developmental disabilities, such as autism, or conditions similar in nature. These changes significantly limit access for individuals with physical disabilities, such as those involving mobility challenges, chronic pain, or other impairments that also make waiting in line difficult.

According to the lawsuit, Disney offers alternative accommodations for those denied DAS, including Rider Switch, Attraction Queue Re-Entry, and Location Return Times. However, the lawsuit argues that these alternatives fail to provide equitable access for many disabled guests, citing logistical challenges, physical strain, and emotional distress caused by these options. The complaint alleges that the revised DAS policies unfairly exclude a significant portion of disabled individuals, making access to Disney’s parks and attractions more difficult for many guests.

What the Lawsuit Alleges: Discrimination and Privacy Violations

The lawsuit alleges that Disney’s revised Disability Access Service (DAS) policies systematically discriminate against individuals with physical disabilities, violating multiple state and federal laws. Key claims include:

• Discriminatory Eligibility Criteria: The revised DAS program restricts eligibility to guests with developmental disabilities, such as autism, while excluding individuals with physical disabilities. The complaint argues that this limitation unlawfully “screens out” individuals with physical impairments, in violation of the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
• Inadequate Alternative Accommodations: The alternatives Disney offers to guests denied DAS—such as Rider Switch, Attraction Queue Re-Entry, and Location Return Times—are described as burdensome and ineffective. The lawsuit claims these options fail to provide equitable access, particularly for guests with mobility challenges, chronic pain, or other physical impairments.
• Violation of Privacy Laws: Disney is accused of requiring applicants to disclose private medical information in public settings, including detailed discussions about their disabilities with Disney staff and third-party contractors. This practice allegedly violates California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) and other privacy laws.
• Deceptive Terms and Conditions: The lawsuit highlights Disney’s requirement that guests agree to restrictive terms and conditions before applying for DAS. These include a class action waiver that prevents disabled individuals from participating in collective legal actions. The complaint argues that this waiver is misleading, coercive, and unenforceable under California law.

Class Action Details: Who is Affected?

The class action lawsuit is led by plaintiff Trisha Malone, a physically disabled guest who was denied DAS accommodations under Disney’s revised policies. Malone claims that her physical disability prevents her from tolerating long waits in standard attraction queues, yet she was deemed ineligible for DAS based on the program’s new criteria.

The proposed class includes all individuals who applied for DAS at Disneyland Resort or Disney California Adventure on or after June 18, 2024. Several subclasses are identified in the lawsuit:

1. General Class: Guests required to sign Disney’s terms and conditions to apply for DAS.
2. PHI Disclosure Subclass: Guests who were required to disclose personal medical information in non-private settings during the DAS application process.
3. DAS Accommodation Subclass: Guests with physical disabilities who were denied DAS based on the revised eligibility criteria.
4. DAS Denied Subclass: Guests directed to use alternative accommodations that failed to provide equitable access.

What Plaintiffs Want: Requested Remedies

The lawsuit outlines several forms of relief that the plaintiffs are seeking:

1. Revision of DAS Policies: The plaintiffs demand that Disney revise its DAS eligibility criteria to ensure it accommodates all individuals with disabilities, including those with physical impairments.
2. Removal of Restrictive Terms: Plaintiffs seek the elimination of the class action waiver and other coercive or misleading terms from the DAS application process.
3. Enhanced Privacy Protections: The lawsuit requests that Disney implement safeguards to protect medical privacy, including conducting DAS evaluations in private settings and ensuring compliance with confidentiality laws.
4. Monetary Damages: Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, CMIA, and CLRA, as well as compensation for emotional distress caused by the alleged discriminatory and invasive practices.
5. Injunctive Relief: The class requests that the court issue an order requiring Disney to comply with state and federal accessibility laws, provide meaningful accommodations for all disabilities, and ensure equal access across its theme parks.

The Broader Impact on Accessibility at Theme Parks

This lawsuit has the potential to set a significant precedent for accessibility in theme parks and other public accommodations. If successful, the case could push Disney and similar businesses to reevaluate their disability access policies and ensure compliance with state and federal laws, including the ADA.

The allegations highlight systemic issues in how corporations manage accommodations for disabled individuals. Disney’s restrictive eligibility criteria for DAS and the alleged inadequacies of alternative accommodations raise broader questions about the inclusivity and equity of services provided to disabled guests.

The case could also bring greater attention to the importance of privacy protections when gathering sensitive medical information. The alleged public collection of private health details in this case serves as a reminder that accessibility programs must balance functionality with dignity and respect for individuals’ rights.

There is also broad potential implications to the class action waiver contained in the terms and conditions. Notably, Disney includes the waiver in an effort to minimize the costs and potential damages associated with class action lawsuits. By including the waiver, it forces plaintiffs who wish to file suit against Disney into either arbitration or an individual lawsuit, limiting the scope of risk to Disney.

Beyond Disney, the outcome of this lawsuit could make a significant impact across the theme park industry.