Controversy Erupts: Disney+ Clause Used in Surprising Legal Move

Disney’s attempt to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit using a Disney+ subscription clause sparks outrage and debate over corporate ethics.

At a Glance

Disney seeks to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit using a Disney+ subscription clause
The lawsuit involves the death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant
Disney argues that an arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms of use applies to all disputes involving Disney and its affiliates
Critics call Disney’s strategy a “big legal stretch” that could strip consumers of fundamental legal protections
A hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2024, to determine the validity of Disney’s defense

The Tragic Incident

On October 5, 2023, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. Despite assurances from the wait staff that their order would be allergen-free, Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction after consuming her meal. The medical examiner later determined that her cause of death was anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.

Following this tragic incident, Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney, seeking damages exceeding $50,000 and alleging negligence by the restaurant staff.

Disney’s Controversial Defense

In a move that has sparked widespread criticism, Disney’s attorneys are seeking to dismiss the lawsuit based on an unexpected legal argument. They claim that an arbitration clause in the Disney+ subscriber agreement, which Piccolo agreed to when signing up for a trial in 2019, should apply to this case.

Disney contends that this clause covers all disputes involving Disney and its affiliates, including Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. This interpretation would require the case to be settled out of court through arbitration rather than proceeding with a traditional lawsuit.

The Walt Disney Company is asking a Florida court to throw out a widower's wrongful death suit after his wife suffered a fatal allergy attack at a Disney Springs restaurant due to fine print on the Disney+ app. https://t.co/wY8y2yZUTA

— FOX 5 NY (@fox5ny) August 14, 2024

Legal and Ethical Concerns

The company’s strategy has raised significant concerns among legal experts and consumer advocates. Critics argue that if successful, this approach could set a dangerous precedent, potentially stripping consumers of fundamental legal protections.

Legal expert Daniel Zuniga has criticized Disney’s argument as a “big legal stretch” that could be harmful to consumers. He expressed hope for a rational court decision, emphasizing the potential implications for average consumers if such a ruling were to be upheld.

The Ongoing Legal Battle

Piccolo’s legal team is vigorously contesting Disney’s motion to compel arbitration. They argue that the arbitration clause should not apply to wrongful death claims and that Piccolo did not agree to the terms on behalf of his wife or her estate.

A Florida judge is set to determine the validity of Disney’s defense in a hearing scheduled for October 2, 2024. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how businesses handle serious claims and consumer contractual obligations.

Public Reaction and Corporate Responsibility

The public reaction to Disney’s legal strategy has been overwhelmingly negative. Many view it as a callous attempt by a corporate giant to evade responsibility for a tragic death. This incident has reignited debates about corporate ethics and the balance of power between large companies and individual consumers in legal disputes.

As this case unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the importance of clear communication about food allergies in restaurants and the potential consequences when proper precautions are not taken. It also highlights the need for careful scrutiny of the terms and conditions consumers agree to when using online services, as these agreements may have unforeseen implications in real-world situations.