Let’s say a server gives you food you repeatedly said you’re deathly allergic to, and let’s say you die. What if your spouse then tries to sue for wrongful death, but the lawyers for the company they’re suing try to get the case thrown out because of the terms of service of a streaming service they (the spouse, not you) signed up for years earlier?
This hypothetical sounds like a dark, dystopian joke, but it’s also allegedly an actual chain of events involving Disney.
Jeffrey Piccolo included Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in a lawsuit earlier this year after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction at a Disney World-based restaurant. Now, Piccolo is suing for damages of over $50,000 — though his lawyers reportedly expect the actual damages to be much higher if a jury decides the matter. In a filing, lawyers for Disney have taken the stance that the case against Disney should be thrown out because the plaintiff agreed to an arbitration clause in signing up for Disney+.
Disney+ will actually crack down on password sharing next month
The tragic incident occurred on Oct. 5, 2023, at Raglan Road Irish Pub, an Ireland-themed restaurant and entertainment experience at the Disney Springs shopping center in Orlando. The Associated Press reports that Tangsuan was allergic to nuts and dairy and reportedly informed the server of this “numerous times.” Despite assurances that the food was dairy- and nut-free, Tangsuan experienced a horrific allergic reaction about 45 minutes after the meal, was hospitalized, and later died.
Disney’s legal team now claims that when Piccolo signed up for a free trial of Disney+ back in 2019, he “agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes'” against the company — meaning all of them, no matter what they involve — and that he roped in his wife into the arbitration clause when he bought park tickets, so he can’t sue on her behalf either.
If you have time, Disney’s May 31 legal filing makes for a compelling read. It proceeds step by step through all the terms of service documents Piccolo must have signed, at exactly what point in time, and exactly what Disney feels the legal implications were each time.
First, Disney’s lawyers say, Piccolo allowed himself to be captured by this all-encompassing arbitration clause when he signed up for a Disney+ free trial in 2019 and created a Disney account. He then used that Disney account to buy his Disney World tickets in 2023, and Disney notes that he would have clicked a box agreeing to the My Disney Experience terms of use. Those terms of use say they are for “yourself and all persons (including minors) for whom you are purchasing or otherwise securing benefits.” Ipso facto, via this complex chain of events, Disney feels it shouldn’t have to be sued in actual court for this alleged wrongful death.
Disney’s lawyers note that, according to the Times, “Further litigation would only generate needless expenses and waste judicial resources.”
Needless to say, this concerns us all because there’s a good chance most of us have also clicked our way into Disney’s legal labyrinth at some point.
In a statement to Mashable, a Disney spokesperson said the following: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. 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.”
It’s worth noting that Raglan Road Irish Pub itself is a named defendant in the lawsuit, and that the restaurant itself is not in fact a Disney possession. It’s early days yet, but a judge could potentially view Disney as using this bold legal rationale to escape involvement in what it views as a legal matter primarily between the plaintiff and Raglan Road Irish Pub.
Piccolo’s lawyers call Disney’s argument “fatally flawed” and “absurd.” In their Aug. 2 response, as quoted by the Associated Press, they wrote, “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.”
Ross Intelisano, a lawyer unrelated to the case whose work involves arbitrations, told the New York Times that Disney’s claim is “a big stretch.” Defendants tend to prefer arbitration over the actual courts because arbitration is private and because arbitration panels “typically do not grant large sums of punitive damages,” the Times notes.
According to the Associated Press, a court hearing on Disney’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration is scheduled for Oct. 2.
UPDATE: Aug. 15, 2024, 12:00 p.m. PDT This story has been updated to include a statement from Disney.
