News
Ex-Disney Worker Who Hacked Menus Gets 3 Years in Prison
A former employee of Walt Disney World who hacked into menus used by its restaurants and edited them — changing prices, adding profanity and altering listed allergens — was sentenced to three years in prison by a federal judge in Florida this week.
None of the changes, including falsified information about food allergens that could have been harmful to visitors, ever appeared before the public, according to court records. The menu alterations were caught and court records show that none of the changes ever reached the printing stage.
The former employee, Michael Scheuer of Winter Garden, Fla., was sentenced on Wednesday in federal court in Orlando, Fla., after pleading guilty in January to one count of computer fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.
Mr. Scheuer, 40, was ordered to pay restitution of about $620,000 to Disney and $70,000 to the unidentified software company that provides Disney with its menu creation program.
While court documents do not mention Disney World, menus that were entered into evidence in Mr. Scheuer’s case are from the hundreds of restaurants at Walt Disney World in Orlando.
Disney World representatives did not respond to messages seeking comment.
In early June 2024, Mr. Scheuer had returned from paternity leave, court documents show. A few days later, he had an argument with a supervisor about menu creation, according to the documents, and he was told that he would be suspended.
Instead, he was fired for unspecified misconduct, the documents state.
An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation later revealed that, beginning around that time and over approximately the next three months, there were multiple hacks into servers that hosted the menu creation program.
Those changes included price cuts or hikes of a few dollars, profanities and altering allergens in certain items.
On a drink called the “Giddy-Up” — a blend of vodka, lemonade and iced tea — he lowered the price by $2, according to court records, and took two ounces off a 10-ounce filet mignon. In another instance, “shellfish” was changed to “hellfish.”
On a couple of menus, either the prices or the descriptions of the items disappeared.
He changed a wine region — Golden, Colo. — to the location of a mass shooting, Aurora, Colo. He also edited “Infamous Goose” — high-quality imported wine from New Zealand — to “Infamous Moose.”
More crucially, Mr. Scheuer edited certain menu items, falsely showing that they were safe for people with allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, shellfish and milk, according to his plea agreement.
Prosecutors said “the discreet way in which these changes were made was likely by design, specifically to avoid detection.”
But Mr. Scheuer’s lawyer, David Haas, said that his client had only been trying to get the attention of Disney so that it would respond to him.
“He knew the menu changes would be identified in Disney’s extensive menu review process,” Mr. Haas said in a court document.
Disney had indeed noticed, and it had contacted the F.B.I., identifying Mr. Scheuer as a possible suspect. In September, the F.B.I. executed a search warrant at Mr. Scheuer’s home and seized several electronic devices.
The criminal complaint also shows that Mr. Scheuer blocked 14 Disney employees from their company accounts through denial-of-service attacks. Some of the targeted workers were former colleagues involved in his firing, according to court records.
On one occasion, Mr. Scheuer drove to the home of one of the targeted employees shortly before 11 p.m., walked to the front door and gave a thumbs-up to the Ring doorbell camera before leaving, court records show.
Gregory W. Kehoe, the interim U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida, said that Mr. Scheuer’s actions were at least partly attributable to a mental health episode. Prosecutors asked for a 70-month sentence.
Mr. Haas said in an interview on Friday that “Mr. Scheuer remains remorseful and apologetic to his former co-workers,” adding that he was grateful to the judge for imposing only a 36-month sentence.
Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.
Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency Saturday night as plumes of black smoke continue to rise from the Lineage Logistics warehouse fire, still burning on the 1400 block of South Los Palos Street in Boyle Heights.
The fire started inside a freezer area at the cold storage facility Wednesday afternoon and was initially extinguished before reigniting on Thursday, according to officials.
Newsom’s declaration allows the state to use additional funding for firefighting efforts, public health services and disaster recovery as Los Angeles continues to deal with the emergency.
“California is mobilizing to support Los Angeles as firefighters and emergency personnel continue their work to contain this fire and protect surrounding communities,” Newsom said in a statement Saturday. “While local officials continue to lead this response, the State of California is prepared to help safeguard public health, support emergency operations, and assist impacted residents. We are coordinating closely with our local partners, deploying specialized expertise, and pre-positioning critical supplies so communities have the support they need both now and throughout recovery.”
Although local officials have not asked for additional state resources at this time, Newsom preemptively made the declaration to provide the region with resources as soon as they are needed, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Director Caroline Thomas Jacobs said.
“Cal OES is working side-by-side with the City and County of Los Angeles and our regional partners to ensure they have the resources, information, and support necessary to respond to this incident,” Jacobs said. “The State of Emergency allows us to further streamline coordination efforts and leverage additional state capabilities as needed. Our focus remains on protecting communities and supporting locally led response operations.”
-
Smoke from Boyle Heights warehouse fire continues to blow over downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, June 20, 2026. (KTLA) -
A massive plume of toxic smoke is seen rising from a Boyle Heights cold storage facility fire on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. (KTLA) -
Crews work a warehouse fire in the Boyle Heights section of Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 17, 2026. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
Resources available to Los Angeles following the declaration include:
- 5.5 million N95 respirator masks available for distribution to impacted communities.
- Commercial-grade air purifiers available for deployment to evacuation centers, community facilities, and other public spaces.
- Bottled water and other emergency supplies available through the state’s logistics network.
- Enhanced air quality monitoring and technical support resources.
Cal OES Fire and Rescue Branch leaders with specialized technical expertise are also available to consult L.A. fire officials on how to deal with the warehouse fire, if necessary. The state provided similar expertise to officials during the chemical tank failure in Garden Grove.
Air quality remains unhealthy in parts of Los Angeles due to the large amount of smoke produced by the fire.
“The warehouse fire has produced significant smoke and particulate matter that may affect air quality in surrounding neighborhoods,” the governor’s office stated. “To support public health monitoring efforts, the California Air Resources Board is coordinating with local and regional partners to ensure access to air quality information and technical expertise. State agencies continue to monitor conditions and stand ready to deploy additional monitoring resources if requested.”
The exterior of the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building is pictured on May 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Patrick Semansky/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Patrick Semansky/AP
The Justice Department released a memo this week that quietly calls into question decades of civil rights protections for Americans with disabilities and stirred fear and anger among advocates and families.
The memo, an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that states do not have to provide in-home or community-based care to people with disabilities who need support. These services allow many disabled Americans to continue to live, learn and work at home or in their own communities, among family and friends.
“It is now the position of the United States government that people with disabilities don’t have a right to be part of their communities,” says Alison Barkoff, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University who led disability law and policy efforts during both the Obama and Biden administrations. “I can’t overstate how significant this change in position is.“
Without the federal government requiring that states provide these services – to help disabled people integrate into their communities – advocates and legal experts warn that cash-strapped states could cut them and return to what was once common practice: de facto segregation of Americans with disabilities in nursing homes and large institutions.
Pushback from the disability community was swift.
“As America prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, [this memo] threatens to drag our nation back to a dark and shameful era of ignorance and cruelty,” said the American Association of People with Disabilities. “This interpretation will open the doors for states to revert to warehousing people with disabilities out of sight and out of mind in institutions.”
“This opinion is a direct threat to decades of progress toward community living for people with disabilities,” said Shira Wakschlag of The Arc of the United States, a nonprofit disability advocacy group. “People with disabilities shouldn’t be forced into institutions because a state refuses to provide services in the community.”
The Justice Department did not respond to an NPR request that it explain its position as well as why it is changing course after decades of legal and bipartisan support for community services.
What the law says
This new memo calls into question what legal experts say has been settled law for decades.
Both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act have long been interpreted to require that states provide services to Americans with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. In short: Institutionalization should be a last resort.
In 1999, a case testing these protections made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Olmstead v. L.C., two women with mental disabilities sued Georgia, arguing that the state had failed its obligation to provide services that would allow them to return to their communities and that it had continued to institutionalize the women instead, thus violating their civil rights.
The court agreed that states have a legal responsibility to provide support that integrates disabled Americans into their communities, and for nearly three decades, courts across the country have embraced that interpretation.
By 2023, 8.4 million Americans were receiving home- and community-based services through Medicaid.
The new memo, written by Lanora Pettit, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, argues that, while federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, it does not impose an “integration mandate” on states to provide these community services.
What’s more, the memo argues, the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision “held only that a state cannot institutionalize such patients without justification.”
But, the memo adds: “What counts as adequate justification remains an open question.”
At one point, Pettit acknowledges the novelty of this reading: “We recognize that this view of Olmstead‘s import is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”
Why it matters
“The United States government since 1977 has taken the position that [federal law] includes an integration mandate that requires services to be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate,” says professor Barkoff, who worked in the Obama Justice Department leading its Olmstead enforcement efforts.
For decades, Barkoff adds, both Republican and Democratic administrations, including the first Trump administration, proactively enforced federal disability law and repeatedly brought actions against states that relied too heavily on care in large, segregated settings that the law says should be a last resort.
The courts and Congress decided institutionalization should be a last resort because people’s personal liberty is at stake, says Jennifer Mathis of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law: “Who you can see, when you can go out, when you eat, what you eat. Who your roommate is, who you talk to, what your environment is. And for so many people who are institutionalized, their life is literally a hallway. I have been on those hallways with people. It is deadening.“
This memo signifies a dramatic change in the U.S. government’s official position.
“We are incredibly concerned that the message coming from the federal government in this memo is, ‘It’s fine to go back to the days that people were placed in institutions,’ even though they can be served in the community, even though they want to be and even though it’s more cost-effective,” Barkoff says.
The timing matters too. The memo arrives as a new case, Texas v. Kennedy, is making its way through the courts. The case, brought by Texas and several other states, is essentially a fresh challenge to the integration mandate on states.
With this memo, the federal government is aligning itself with the plaintiffs in the case. Though Mathis cautions: “It’s important to understand that [this memo] is not the law, that the Justice Department can’t change the law. Congress makes laws, not agencies.“
For now, it’s not clear what the immediate impact of the memo will be, though it seems the Justice Department will stop its enforcement efforts around Olmstead.
Why now?
The Justice Department memo appears to be the latest salvo in a broader effort that began on July 24, 2025, when President Trump issued an executive order intended to make it easier for state and local governments to police homelessness.
“Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe,” the order argues, going on to claim that “the overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.”
The administration’s solution: Involuntary institutionalization. “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order,” the order reads.
In a 2023 campaign video, President Trump himself pledged: “For those who are severely mentally ill and deeply disturbed, we will bring them back to mental institutions, where they belong.”
A conservative Texas think tank, the Cicero Institute, has been a driving force behind recent efforts to forcefully combat homelessness, including through institutionalization.
One serious obstacle to large-scale institutionalization of the unhoused is federal disability law that has long required home- or community-based services instead, when appropriate. A footnote in the Justice Department’s new memo appears to suggest these laws have contributed to the rise in chronic homelessness.
To the contrary, Barkoff says, the Olmstead decision “has been one of the most effective tools in providing services and stable housing to people who are homeless.”
NPR has previously reported that the Trump administration’s push for institutionalization faces another big obstacle: An acute shortage of beds at these specialized facilities.
The memo arrives as Republicans have also passed deep cuts to Medicaid, which is the primary source of funding for community-based services many disabled Americans rely on.
Multiple legal experts tell NPR that, in response to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states must now make deep cuts to a whole range of services previously funded by Medicaid. The Trump administration’s memo, they add, essentially gives states permission to cut these localized supports and, instead, rely on institutionalization – even though research shows the latter is considerably more expensive for states to provide.
This comes as disability advocates were already pushing back against the Trump administration’s announcement on Tuesday that it would move federal administration of special education programs out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Health and Human Services – a change that, as with the new Justice Department memo, raised fears of a rollback of the enforcement of longstanding civil rights protections.
new video loaded: The Sacred Catholic Site Where Trump Wants a Border Wall
The Trump administration is trying to seize the land around Mount Cristo Rey, a sacred site of Catholic pilgrimages, in order to build a border wall on it. The Times reporter Reis Thebault takes us up the mountain to see the 30-foot statue of Jesus at the top, and the border wall below.
By Reis Thebault, Christina Shaman, Jon Miller, June Kim and Melanie Bencosme
June 20, 2026
-
Technology4 minutes agoSony’s Xperia 1 VIII is still a phone for the fans
-
World11 minutes agoTrump-backed ‘El Tigre’ looks to crush cartels, end Colombia’s socialist era in pivotal election
-
Politics14 minutes agoObama Center visitors say project symbolic of ‘Black excellence,’ claim scandal-free legacy while Trump ripped
-
Health19 minutes agoPoison centers link growing Benadryl abuse among teens to dangerous social media trends
-
Sports26 minutes agoBryce Harper hits for cycle, Kyle Schwarber blasts three homers in Phillies blowout win over Mets
-
Technology29 minutes agoMeta offers paid training for AI data center jobs
-
Business34 minutes ago‘I got crushed’: AI giants are funding ad wars in races across the country
-
Entertainment41 minutes agoA fake mountain and real magic transform Paris’ oldest bridge
