Full Analysis Summary
Disney DAS legal challenges
Disney is facing legal and shareholder challenges over recent changes to its Disability Access Service (DAS).
A federal lawsuit and a shareholder proposal argue the revisions are too restrictive and should be broadened.
The Associated Press reports the lawsuit and proposal contend the new rules limit who can qualify to skip long lines at Disney's California and Florida parks.
The AP quotes advocates who say Disney has overreached by policing eligibility.
The AP notes critic Shannon Bonadurer says she was denied a pass despite needing to avoid long waits because she uses an ileostomy bag.
KSHB 41 provides background on DAS, which was created in 2013 to let qualifying guests reserve a ride time and use an expedited line.
KSHB 41 notes Disney says the program's growth (from about 5% to roughly 20% of guests over a dozen years) and past abuse prompted changes.
Together the reports outline both the legal pushback and Disney's stated rationale for revising DAS.
Coverage Differences
Tone / Emphasis
Associated Press (Western Mainstream) emphasizes the legal challenge and advocates' objections, including a named denied critic, portraying the dispute as a rights issue; KSHB 41 (Other) emphasizes program history, operational reasons for change and technical details of the new rules and verification process. The two sources thus present complementary but different emphases — AP on litigation and personal impact, KSHB on policy mechanics and Disney's operational explanation.
Disney DAS policy changes
KSHB 41 details how Disney says the DAS has changed and how eligibility is now assessed.
The outlet reports Disney told reporters DAS usage swelled from about 5% to 20% of guests.
Disney introduced narrower eligibility focused mainly on visitors who, due to a developmental disability such as autism or similar, cannot tolerate long waits.
KSHB also reports the application process now includes a video interview with a Disney employee and a contracted medical professional.
The outlet warns that dishonesty on applications can lead to park bans.
The Associated Press complements this coverage by reporting the resulting complaints and the legal and shareholder responses without the same level of operational detail.
When read together, the two sources create a fuller picture of the changes and the reactions they prompted.
Coverage Differences
Detailed Mechanics vs. Legal Focus
KSHB 41 (Other) supplies operational details — growth figures, narrowed eligibility language, and the new video-interview verification — while Associated Press (Western Mainstream) focuses on the lawsuit, the shareholder proposal and plaintiffs' complaints. This means KSHB is more detailed about how Disney enforces the policy; AP centers on dispute and impact.
Disney DAS denials
Both sources relay concrete examples of people who say they were denied DAS under the new rules and describe the resulting criticisms.
The Associated Press highlights advocates' arguments that Disney is policing disability and names Shannon Bonadurer, who says she was denied despite using an ileostomy bag.
KSHB 41 reports other denials, including a family claim that both a mother and her adult son — described as blind and living with cerebral palsy and autism — were denied.
KSHB also notes a shareholder proposal from DAS Defenders calling for an independent review and Disney's response that it is "misleading" and an improper micromanagement of operations, a point the AP also references when summarizing the legal and shareholder dynamics.
Coverage Differences
Reported Examples / Specificity
Associated Press (Western Mainstream) quotes a named critic (Bonadurer) to illustrate individual impact; KSHB 41 (Other) adds another specific denied-case family and more procedural detail about the shareholder proposal and Disney's SEC response. Each includes reported claims rather than attributing findings to an independent authority.
Disney ADA dispute
Both accounts include Disney’s stated defense and the legal context but with different framing.
KSHB quotes Disney saying the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require identical treatment for all disabilities and lists alternative accommodations the company says it provides, including Braille maps, transfer devices, quiet spaces, ASL interpreters, and some service-animal and line-rejoin allowances.
The Associated Press emphasizes advocates’ contention that Disney should not be the arbiter of disability.
Neither source offers a legal determination; both report claims and positions and leave legal outcomes and ADA interpretation to the courts or regulators.
Coverage Differences
Legal Framing vs. Advocacy Framing
KSHB 41 (Other) reports Disney's legal framing — that the ADA doesn't require identical treatment and lists other accommodations — while Associated Press (Western Mainstream) foregrounds advocates' claim that Disney is over-policing eligibility. Both present reported positions rather than independent legal analysis.
Disney DAS dispute overview
KSHB's reporting provides operational detail and examples of denials under Disney's revised Disability Access Service (DAS).
AP focuses on the legal challenge and the human impact, highlighting why disabled visitors and shareholders are contesting the changes.
The coverage also notes alternatives, such as Universal's international accessibility-certification card, and records Disney's intention to fight the shareholder proposal through the SEC.
At this stage the reports present assertions from plaintiffs, advocates and Disney rather than adjudicated facts, and the legal case or any independent reviews called for by shareholder proponents would be needed to resolve competing claims.
Coverage Differences
Narrative Completeness / Omitted Context
KSHB 41 (Other) includes a comparison to Universal’s international accessibility-certification card and operational specifics, which AP (Western Mainstream) omits in its brief summary; AP emphasizes the lawsuit and shareholder action. This difference affects readers’ ability to compare Disney’s approach to other parks and to understand the full operational alternatives in the industry.