The Loophole Disney Found in a Tragic Wrongful Death Case

Disney faces backlash for attempting to use a streaming service agreement to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit.

At a Glance

A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against Disney after a woman died from an allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant.
Disney is attempting to dismiss the case based on an arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms of use.
The company argues that the restaurant is neither owned nor operated by them.
Legal experts and consumer advocates criticize Disney’s strategy as an overreach of contract law.

Tragic Death Leads to Lawsuit

In a case that has sparked widespread debate on corporate ethics and consumer rights, Disney is facing heavy criticism for its legal strategy in a wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, stems from the tragic death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney World on October 5, 2023.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Tangsuan, a 42-year-old New York doctor, died from anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system after dining at Raglan Road, an Irish pub in Disney Springs. The family alleges that they were assured the food was allergen-free, but Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction despite self-administering an epi-pen.

Disney’s Controversial Legal Maneuver

In a move that has raised eyebrows across the legal community, Disney is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit by citing the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service. The company argues that an arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms of use, which Mr. Piccolo agreed to when creating an account in 2019, requires all disputes to be settled out of court via arbitration.

“Disney is pushing the envelope of contract law,” says Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, who are not involved in the proceedings.

Disney is arguing in a wrongful-death case that the terms of a Disney+ account extend to its theme parks https://t.co/OWauw5K2hM

— Insider (@thisisinsider) August 15, 2024

This legal strategy has been met with fierce opposition from Mr. Piccolo’s lawyers, who argue that it is “preposterous” and “inane” to apply a streaming service agreement to a wrongful death case. They contend that Mr. Piccolo agreed to the terms for himself, not on behalf of his deceased wife or her estate.

Ethical Concerns and Public Backlash

Disney’s attempt to use a seemingly unrelated contract to avoid a public trial has sparked significant ethical concerns. Critics argue that this strategy, if successful, could set a dangerous precedent for how corporations use legal technicalities to sidestep responsibility in serious cases.

“The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this court should not enforce such an agreement,” Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, wrote in the Aug. 2 filing.

Legal experts have expressed concern over the implications of such a ruling for average consumers. Daniel Zuniga, a legal expert not involved in the case, criticized Disney’s argument as a “big legal stretch” and potentially harmful to consumers.

Disney’s Defense and Future Implications

Disney maintains that whether Mr. Piccolo reviewed the service terms is immaterial and that the arbitration provision covers all disputes involving Disney or its affiliates. The company has also stated that the restaurant in question is neither owned nor operated by them, and they are defending against being included in the lawsuit.

“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief,” Disney said in a statement. “Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

The case, which is set to be heard by a Florida judge in October, could have far-reaching implications for corporate accountability and consumer rights. If Disney’s motion is successful, it could potentially limit the ability of consumers to seek justice in court for a wide range of disputes with large corporations.

As this case unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the complex interplay between corporate interests, consumer rights, and the legal system. The outcome may well shape the future landscape of corporate accountability and the extent to which companies can use broad contractual agreements to shield themselves from liability.