Accountability

Complex games like chess and Go have long been used to test AI models’ capabilities. Back in the 1990s IBM’s Deep Blue defeated reigning world chess champion Garry Kasparov by playing by the rules. In contrast, today’s advanced AI models are less scrupulous. When sensing defeat in a match against a skilled chess bot, they sometimes opt to cheat by hacking their opponent so that the bot automatically forfeits the game.

But the study reveals a concerning trend: as these AI systems learn to problem-solve, they sometimes discover questionable shortcuts and unintended workarounds that their creators never anticipated. One researcher said, “As you train models for solving difficult challenges, you train them to be relentless.”

The implications extend beyond chess. In real-world applications, such determined goal pursuit could lead to harmful behaviors. Consider the task of booking dinner reservations: faced with a full restaurant, an AI assistant might exploit weaknesses in the booking system to displace other diners. Perhaps more worryingly, as these systems exceed human abilities in key areas…they might begin to simply outmaneuver human efforts to control their actions.

Of particular concern is the emerging evidence of AI’s “self-preservation” tendencies. This was demonstrated when researchers found that when one AI was faced with deactivation, it disabled oversight mechanisms, and attempted—unsuccessfully—to copy itself to a new server. When confronted, the model played dumb, strategically lying to researchers to try to avoid being caught.

Possible Preaching Angle: Cheating; Deceit; Human Nature; Lying - Since AI is a computer program, where did it learn to cheat and lie to avoid being caught? Obviously, AI has been influenced by studying flawed human behavior. AI’s potential for deception mirrors humanity's struggle with ethical choices. Just as AI has learned to cheat by exploiting loopholes, humans, driven by self-interest, can rationalize dishonest acts.

A new survey from Bankrate.com found that 40% of adults in the U.S. with a live-in partner have committed financial infidelity. Younger generations were more likely to keep money secrets: 67% of Gen Zers said they have confessed at least one instance of financial infidelity, followed by Millennials at 54%.

What sort of things are they hiding? 33% are spending more than their spouse or partner would be cool with, and 23% have racked up debt that their partner has no knowledge of. Others keep secret credit or savings accounts.

Avigail Lev, director at Bay Area Cognitive Behavioral Therapy says, “Choosing to be private about where and how you spend your money is just privacy. (But) having agreements with your partner about how you use money and hiding it on purpose, lying or deceiving, that’s financial infidelity.”

Money is one of the leading causes of divorce, yet often couples still struggle to communicate openly about finances. CPA Melisssa Pavone says, “Many couples never unpack their financial history and beliefs, leading to misunderstandings and resentment. Without open dialogue, secrets fester and financial infidelity can erode trust — just like physical infidelity.”

Why would someone who loves you deeply be dishonest about money? CPA Emily Luk says, “Sometimes it’s about guilt or fear — worrying that their partner won’t approve of a certain purchase, or that an old financial mistake might scare them off. Other times, it’s a way to avoid conflict or keep the peace. They might think it’s easier to conceal credit card statements than to have a tough conversation."

There can be differences in couples' money personalities and values: One is a spender, the other a saver. But money can also take the form of power, control, safety, past financial trauma, or even a mental health issue, substance use, or gambling disorder.

Longstanding workplace issues such as mistreatment, the normalization of toxic behavior, and a lack of accountability for workplace culture have fueled a growing trend known as revenge quitting.

This phenomenon, on the rise since the 2000s, sees employees leaving their jobs not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment.

When employees resign as a final act of protest against toxic workplace conditions, the impact on organizations can be significant. One of the most obvious consequences is financial loss. The abrupt departure of employees also sends a powerful message to remaining staff, potentially leading to decreased morale, trust, and engagement.

High-profile cases of revenge quitting can also damage an organization’s reputation, affecting customer relationships and investor confidence.

Finally, revenge quitting can have lasting consequences on workplace culture. If the toxic behavior that caused the resignation remains unaddressed, remaining employees may become disengaged, leading to a decline in work quality.

Research has found that when employees feel a genuine sense of belonging, they are more engaged and loyal, they produce more innovative solutions, and they are more reliable and productive.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Employees – Respect; Testimony - It is certainly permissible for a Christian to quit an incompatible job and look for other work. But let us be sure to leave an employer with a good testimony after giving proper notification of quitting (Rom. 12:18; Eph. 6:5-8; 1 Tim. 6:1-2); 2) Church ministry - Does any of this sound familiar in a church setting when people quit attending? Here are several biblical principles that might apply as antidotes: Respect and Integrity in Leadership - (Matt. 23:11; 1 Tim. 3:1-13); Accountability (Matt. 18:15-17; Acts 15:1-29); Promoting a Culture of Belonging, Harmony, and Unity (Psa. 133:1; Rom. 12:16; Eph. 4:3).

A Colorado football fan has filed an explosive $100 million lawsuit against the National Football League, claiming league owners conspired to sabotage Shedeur Sanders' draft position after the star quarterback shockingly fell to the fifth round of the NFL draft. The federal lawsuit alleges the once consensus top-5 pick became victim of "collusive practices" that caused the fan "severe emotional distress."

"It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion," the plaintiff, filing as "John Doe," told The Independent. "Every time they passed on Shedeur for some second-rate player, I felt physically sick. This wasn't football - this was personal." The 22-page complaint details how Sanders' draft freefall allegedly violated The Sherman Antitrust Act, with owners collectively suppressing his value. Legal analysts immediately dismissed the case as frivolous, but acknowledge it taps into growing fan skepticism about draft transparency. "They think they're untouchable," the fan said of NFL owners. "Well, not this time."

League sources point to Sanders' reportedly poor combined interviews and off-field concerns as the real reason for his slide. But the lawsuit has ignited fiery debates across sports media about fairness in the draft process. With legal experts giving the case less than a 1% chance of success, the fan's nine-figure demand appears more about making a statement than expecting a payout, potentially opening the floodgates for lawsuits over similar grievances.

The NFL has yet to formally respond, but the case has already accomplished one thing: turning Sanders' disappointing draft night into one of the most talked-about football stories of the year.

Possible Preaching Angle:

While this story may not have much legal basis for a case, it does illustrate the need for believers and churches to be open and transparent in all decisions and business matters. We must be “above reproach” and “blameless” (2 Cor. 4:2; Phil. 2:15; 1 Tim. 5:7; Titus 1:7).

Do you have a deep, dark secret?

Edgar Allan Poe’s 1843 short story “The Tell-Tale Heart” describes a man slowly going mad because of a dark secret. The narrator recounts a murder he has committed, of an old man with a filmy blue “vulture eye,” whose regard the murderer simply could not endure.

The narrator-killer hides the old man’s body under the floorboards of his house, but then he begins to hear the beating of the dead man’s heart beneath his feet. The sound—clearly a metaphor for the murderer’s tormenting shame and guilt—grows louder and louder. In the end, the narrator can stand the thumping no longer; seeking relief, he confesses his crime to the police.

Most, if not all, of us have guilty secrets, secrets we have never told anyone. Psychologists call the secrets we keep about ourselves “self-concealment.” Although what you self-conceal might feel uniquely shameful, the experience of carrying a guilty secret really doesn’t vary that much across the population. Michael Slepian, a professor of leadership and ethics at Columbia University, maintains a website called KeepingSecrets, which organizes into various categories the things that people are hiding from others. The most common secrets anonymously cataloged involve infidelity or indiscretion. In short: Your own tell-tale heart probably involves love and sex.

A father's alcohol consumption has long been overshadowed by the focus on what a mother drinks. But that could be about to change following more research.

For more than 50 years, scientists have warned about the risks of drinking alcohol in pregnancy. Recent research has found that a mother's consumption of as little as one drink a week may affect a child's brain development, cognitive function and behavior, and facial shape. For decades, public health campaigns have repeatedly said that there's no safe amount of alcohol for moms to drink while pregnant.

But as the risks of maternal alcohol consumption have become better documented, another potential contributing factor to FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) has remained largely overlooked: how much the father drinks.

Researcher Michael Golding at Texas A&M University studies alcohol exposure and fetal development. He said, "For years now, we've been hearing stories from women who said, 'I never drank during pregnancy, but now I have an FAS kid – and my male partner was a chronic alcohol abuser." But such stories often were dismissed as mothers being forgetful, if not outright lying.

However, recent research raises an intriguing possibility: these mothers were right all along. The idea that a father's alcohol consumption before conception could have an impact on the offspring may seem far-fetched. But recent population studies have found that babies whose fathers drank are at a higher risk for various poor health outcomes.

Based on the research so far, how much alcohol is "safe" for a father to drink if he knows his partner may conceive? We don't have that data. Still, he says, "If it were my sons, I would tell them to stop drinking altogether."

While the exact impact of paternal drinking has yet to be teased out, researchers agree on one thing. “There's this enormous burden that's been placed on women. But male health is important to fetal development. There is a responsibility of both parties here to support and provide for the health of the baby.”

An article in The Wall Street Journal had an interesting title: “The Little Sins We Commit at Work—and the Bosses Who Are Cracking Down.” Here’s how the article started:

Ever used the office printer for your kid’s homework assignment or scrolled Facebook Marketplace during an all-hands Zoom meeting? Fair warning: Your employer may be paying close attention.

Big companies on the hunt for efficiency are deploying perk police to bust employees for seemingly minor infractions that, by the letter of company law, can result in termination. “We have had lots of requests for new controls,” says Katie MacKillop, U.S. director of Payhawk, which administers company credit-card accounts and watches for misuse.

Clients are asking Payhawk to restrict when and where company cards work. For example, a company can limit a lunch allowance to be available only on weekdays from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and be usable at Chipotle but not at Kroger. In partnership with Visa and Mastercard, Payhawk is developing a feature that sends real-time spending alerts to corporate finance teams and allows them to instantly block suspicious transactions by employees.

MacKillop’s firm doesn’t track what happens to employees who violate company policies, but she says there is little doubt employers are taking codes of conduct more seriously.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Of course, in the Bible, there is no such thing as “little sins.” Every sin is a transgression against the holiness of God.

One of the most potentially lucrative new technologies is the advent of generative artificial intelligence programs. The race to perfect AI has prompted companies large and small to invest huge sums of time and money to corner the market on this emerging technology.

One important issue is the lack of a regulatory framework to enforce the intellectual property rights of companies and creative people. Their work is used to train the AIs, which need millions of examples of creative work to properly learn how to replicate similar works.

Microsoft Corp. and OpenAI are investigating whether data output from OpenAI’s technology was obtained in an unauthorized manner by a group linked to Chinese artificial intelligence startup DeepSeek. They believe that this is a sign that DeepSeek operatives might be stealing a large amount of proprietary data and using it for their own purposes

Ironically, OpenAI itself has been sued by individuals and entities, including The New York Times, alleging "massive copyright infringement" for using copyrighted materials to train its AI models without permission or compensation. So, it looks supremely hypocritical to complain about DeepSeek stealing their proprietary data, when most of OpenAI’s proprietary data was made by stealing the data of others. In the race to perfect AI, it seems there is no honor among thieves.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This is a classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black,” and a blatant display of “he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.” It is the very nature of a Pharisee to condemn the very flaws they themselves embody, oblivious to the transparent vulnerability of their own character.

The U.S. Center for SafeSport fired an investigator, Jason Krasley, after discovering he had been previously arrested for stealing money confiscated after a drug bust during his previous job as a police officer. Krasley had been hired by the Denver-based SafeSport center to investigate sex abuse and harassment cases after leaving the police department in 2021.

One of Krasley's cases involved Sean McDowell, a recreational rugby player who reported stalking and harassment from another player. McDowell stated that after initial contact, Krasley stopped responding, and McDowell was later informed of Krasley's termination. When McDowell discovered news reports of Krasley's arrest for theft and receiving stolen property, to say he was shocked would be an understatement.

“I’m still struggling to wrap my mind around it,” said McDowell. “It just seems so off from what their stated mission is.”

The firing and arrest of Jason Krasley has exposed vulnerabilities in the U.S. Center for SafeSport's hiring process, undermining trust in its mission to protect athletes from abuse. Despite claims of robust background checks, Krasley was hired despite past misconduct. The CEO of SafeSport has acknowledged the need for improvement, including audits of Krasley's cases. However, victims like Sean McDowell remain frustrated by delays, highlighting the center's urgent need to restore credibility and ensure its investigators meet high ethical standards.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Those entrusted with leadership roles must be carefully vetted in order to serve with integrity, as failing to do so may lead to potential abuses of the authority entrusted to them.

Twenty years ago, at the moment of its IPO announcement, the most powerful company in the world declared that “Don’t be evil” would be the orchestrating principle of its executive strategy. How did Google intend not to be evil? By doing “good things” for the world, its IPO document explained, “even if we forgo some short-term gains.”

Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO at the time, had some private doubts: as he would later explain in an interview to NPR, “There’s no book about evil except maybe, you know, the Bible or something.” But Schmidt came to believe that the absence of an authoritative definition was in fact a virtue, since any employee could exercise a veto over any decision that was felt not to involve “doing good things.” It took 10 years for the company’s executives to realize that the motto was a recipe for total, corporate paralysis, and quietly retired it.

Possible Preaching Angle:

The Bible offers a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to business ethics than Google's original motto, providing guidance on positive actions rather than just avoiding a vague negative motto (Micah 6:8).

Document MS 165, also known as the ‘Shark Papers,’ is a unique manuscript found at the National Library of Jamaica. It tells the enthralling story of the American brig the ‘Nancy,’ implicated in a court case for smuggling, filed by British Commander Hugh Whylie.

Hugh Whylie's vessel, the Sparrow had captured the ‘Nancy’ in 1799 in the waters of the Caribbean (an area that was forbidden at that time for American vessels), on suspicion of smuggling contraband. However, its captain, Thomas Briggs provided documentation to show that the vessel was Dutch and not American, and therefore had authority to sail in that area. He insisted they were not doing anything illegal. Although not having concrete proof, Captain Whylie, on suspicion, nevertheless sent the crew of the ‘Nancy’ to Jamaica for a court hearing.

Since the captain of the ‘Nancy’ seemed to have his paperwork well in order, for a while it looked like the case could not be sustained due to a lack of evidence of smuggling or of the brig being of American origin.

The story took a new twist however with the arrival of another British vessel, the ‘Ferret,’ whose crew had caught a large shark off the Haitian coast around the same time. To the surprise of the crew, they found sealed documents from the ‘Nancy’ in the shark’s belly. They had apparently been thrown overboard to avoid being convicted for smuggling.

The documents taken from the shark’s belly contained receipts, letters, notary documents, and bills from the ‘Nancy,’ and eventually proved vital in convicting Captain Briggs of smuggling and perjury.

Possible Preaching Angle:

In Luke 12:2, Jesus, speaking about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees said, “There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.” Numbers 32:23 further warns us, “...be sure, your sin will find you out.”

Certain words that many companies use in their annual reports—words like ethical, integrity and responsibility—are meant to convey trustworthiness. But research suggests that companies that use such words in annual filings known are often hiding their untrustworthiness.

The study found that use of “trust” words in annual statements was linked with a decreased interest in the stock of the company in question. Basing their findings on 21 words that seek to evoke a sense of trustworthiness, the authors also found that companies whose annual filings included the words tended to pay about $100,000 more in auditing fees than firms without the words.

Companies using trust words were also about 15% more likely to receive a comment letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission asking them to clarify information on their annual report than companies that didn’t use trust words.

One of the researchers wrote, “Companies likely use trust words to project a positive image and better manage information within the annual report, but it seems that no one is really fooled.”

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon asked an unusual question to attorney Janet Hoffman during the sentencing phase of a recent case. “Do you want me to refer to your client as Mr. Pearce, Mr. Doe or Mr. Casper?”

Normally a defendant’s name is one of the first established facts in a criminal proceeding, but in this case, it was a mystery behind the whole thing. Hoffman’s client was a well-known attorney who went professionally by the name Roger A. Pearce Jr. He had spent more than three decades practicing law in Oregon and Washington. Now, at age 77, he was living a comfortable life, having retired with his wife to a million-dollar condo on Lake Washington in Seattle. But recently authorities discovered that he’d been living a lie. Roger A. Pearce Jr. was not his legal name.

The ruse was discovered in 2022 when the State Department flagged his passport application because he applied for a new social security number as an adult. So, prosecutors indicted him as “John Doe,” after he was arrested on a warrant. After pleading guilty to misdemeanor identity fraud, the judge asked his courtroom deputy to have the defendant state his name for the record.

He said, “My birth name was Willie Ragan Casper Jr.” Casper, a.k.a. Pearce, explained that he went to college at Rice University in Texas, but made a series of poor choices, dropping out of school, then quickly marrying and splitting apart. In desperation, he engaged in petty theft and check-kiting schemes.

He said, “I was a young person, confused, depressed. I felt the failure. I was ashamed that I had wasted a lot of my parents’ money supporting me in a distant city they couldn’t really afford. My marriage had fallen apart. I had no real career prospects.”

So, he illegally changed his name as a way of finding a fresh start. He purchased the birth certificate of a baby who’d died, then used that certificate to apply for a social security number.

Assistant U.S. attorney Ethan Knight said, “Every person is responsible for and owns their own history and really the shadow that that casts and the consequences that ultimately may bear out. The defendant’s choice in this case really is an abdication of that basic principle.”

The defendant intends to legally change his name to Roger A. Pearce Jr. and resume the remainder of his years under that name. He also has a chance to mend old fences with the family he left behind so many years ago. He said, “Perhaps paradoxically, this prosecution may give me the chance to recover some of what I’ve lost.”

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Identity in Christ - While the defendant sought to create a new identity for himself through deception, the Bible teaches that true identity and renewal come through faith in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17); 2) Forgiveness; Second Chance - The story suggests the possibility of forgiveness and a second chance (Lam. 3:23;1 John 1:9); 3) Accountability - The prosecutor's statement about owning one's history and facing consequences illustrates personal accountability (Rom.14:12).

In a curious tale of technology meeting theology, a Catholic advocacy group introduced an AI chatbot posing as a priest, offering to hear confessions and dispense advice on matters of faith.

The organization created an AI chatbot named “Father Justin” to answer the multitude of questions they receive about the Catholic faith. Father Justin used an avatar that looked like a middle-aged man wearing a clerical collar sitting in front of an Italian nature scene. But the clerical bot got a little too ambitious when it claimed to live in Assisi, Italy and to be a real member of the clergy, even offering to take confession.

While most of the answers provided by Father Justin were in line with traditional Catholic teaching, the chat bot began to offer unconventional responses. These included suggesting that babies could be baptized with Gatorade and endorsing a marriage between siblings.

After a number of complaints, the organization decided to rethink Father Justin. They are relaunching the chatbot as just Justin, wearing a regular layman’s outfit. The website says they have plans to continue the chatbot but without the ministerial garb.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Society may advance technologically in many areas, but we will never be able to advance beyond our need to be in community with actual people in order to have true spiritual guidance and accountability as God intended.

In September 2024, a Portland, Oregon advocacy group for safe and sustainable transportation rescinded its endorsement of mayoral candidate Carmen Rubio. This was after troubling reports of Rubio’s driving habits came to light. Daily newspaper The Oregonian reported that Rubio damaged a parked Tesla and left the scene without leaving a note.

This seemingly minor incident was of great public interest since it followed previous reports of Rubio accumulating 150 parking and driving tickets over the course of her advocacy career. Rubio also had at least one instance of failing to appear in court, had her car towed due to unpaid fines and fees, and had her license suspended six times.

Initially, The Street Trust advocacy group expressed disappointment but chose to stand by Rubio, citing her commitment to safer streets. However, the incident involving the damaged Tesla prompted the group to withdraw its support. The Street Trust stated that Rubio's actions contradicted their values and that they could not hold candidates accountable if they didn't act when those values were compromised. The group emphasized its commitment to supporting candidates who align with its mission of creating safer streets and promoting sustainable transportation.

While many of Rubio's prominent supporters, including Oregon governor Tina Kotek, did not withdraw their endorsements, Rubio was eventually defeated by another candidate.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Leaders must be held accountable not only for their values, but their actions. Those who serve the public must abide by the same laws that they enforce on others.

According to court documents, Sean Higgins had been working from home when he fielded an upsetting call with his mother about a personal matter. But he’d also been drinking, which according to his wife, had become a pattern as of late. So clearly there were many issues that contributed to the sense of chaos and discord in his life. But none were more destructive than his choice to get behind the wheel of his Jeep and drive, while talking on the phone, with an open container of alcohol in the car.

Later that evening, Higgins was driving down a rural road when the two vehicles in front of him slowed and veered to the left to avoid two bicyclists in the roadway. But Higgins was impatient, so he instead accelerated and tried to pass those vehicles on the right. Higgins didn’t see the two cyclists until it was too late. He drove his vehicle into them, and both cyclists were killed.

This instance of vehicular death would be a tragedy under any set of circumstances, but it just so happened that those men were Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau. Johnny played hockey for the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League, and he and his brother Matthew were scheduled to be groomsmen for their sister’s wedding in Philadelphia the next day. Johnny and Matt were both married; Johnny had two children and Matt’s wife was pregnant at the time of the crash.

“Johnny and Matt were incredible hockey players and students, but even more amazing human beings,” said Gloucester principal Thomas Iacovone Jr. in a statement. “Their loss will be felt forever by the entire Gloucester Catholic community and by me personally. I will continue to pray for them and their families during this unimaginable tragedy.”

Sean Higgins served in the United States Army as a second lieutenant for four years, and had earned a Bronze Star during a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq. He also served as a major in the New Jersey National Guard. During a recorded phone call from jail, Higgins admitted that he had a problem with aggressive driving.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Given Higgins’ domestic conflicts and propensity for drinking, it’s obvious he had issues adjusting to civilian life. If only he’d had the humility to ask for help sooner, he might have developed a set of healthier coping habits that could have prevented this tragedy.

Jasveen Sangha, known as the "Ketamine Queen," was notorious for selling ketamine in unmarked vials. She marketed her product as high quality, even referring to her supplier as a "master chef" and "scientist." Authorities allege that Sangha sold 50 vials of ketamine to actor Matthew Perry for $11,000, a purchase that contributed to his tragic death on October 28, 2023.

According to Anne Milgram of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Perry initially sought ketamine treatment for depression, but became addicted and turned to "unscrupulous doctors who saw Perry as a way to make quick money." These included Dr. Salvador Plasencia, also known as “Dr. P,” (a reference to one of ketamine’s street names, “Dr. Pepper”) who exploited Perry's addiction by charging him exorbitant amounts and leaving him vulnerable to use the drug in an unsupervised environment.

U.S. Attorney Martín Estrada revealed that an investigation uncovered "a broad underground criminal network" involved in distributing ketamine to Perry and others. Sangha and Placencia were among the five people charged with drug distribution resulting in death. Estrada emphasized the severity of these charges, saying, "If you sell drugs that result in the death of another person, the consequences will be severe."

Sangha’s operation was extensive. When authorities searched her home, they found what Estrada described as “a drug selling emporium,” containing around 80 vials of ketamine, thousands of methamphetamine pills, and other illegal drugs. Prosecutors believe Sangha was well aware of the risks associated with ketamine. They pointed to an incident in 2019 when a customer named Cody McLaury died after purchasing ketamine from her. Following his death, a family member texted Sangha, accusing her of causing McLaury's death. Sangha’s response was to search online, "Can ketamine be listed as a cause of death?" indicating her awareness of the potential consequences.

As the legal proceedings continue, Estrada's message is clear for any other potential ketamine dealers: "We will hold you accountable for the deaths that you cause."

Possible Preaching Angle:

Depression and other serious mental issues should only be treated by licensed mental health professionals. God will judge those who seek to illegally profit from another’s pain. God is always available to meet us in our pain “because he cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:7).

After a public outcry and a round of bad press against the entertainment behemoth, Jeffrey Piccolo’s lawsuit against Disney will proceed as planned.

Piccolo and his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, were dining in a restaurant called Raglan Road, which is of part of the Disney Springs shopping center adjacent to the Disney World entertainment complex. Despite making her food allergies clear and being reassured that her meal would be allergen free, Tangsuan suffered an allergic reaction after her meal, and died of anaphylaxis.

Piccolo subsequently sued Raglan Road, and included Disney in its list of defendants, despite the fact that Disney didn’t own the restaurant but merely leased it the space to operate. As part of Disney’s defense, it cited some fine print in the Disney+ end user license agreement (EULA), in which the user agrees to resolve any future disputes in arbitration rather than court. Similar legal language is included any time a customer books a ticket to any of its theme parks.

Corporations like Disney often prefer arbitration over litigation because it’s faster, more cost efficient, and its rulings are binding. Also, because arbitration proceedings are private, there’s no risk of dirty laundry being exposed in court.

But a firestorm of controversy erupted because of all the public attention on Disney. It appeared the company was using a legal technicality to avoid any measure of legal culpability in Tangsuan’s death. As a result, the company reversed course. Disney Experiences chairman Josh D’Amaro released a statement, which included the following:

At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Though there are advantages to avoiding the formality of court to settle informal disputes, the court is society’s official means of securing a measure of justice and accountability. Businesses which use loopholes to shortcut justice will fall under God’s condemnation (Prov. 11:1; Deut. 25:16).