Top 3 Key Points:
- Disney is trying to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit by citing an arbitration clause tied to Disney Plus and Disney World ticket purchases.
- The lawsuit involves a woman who died from an allergic reaction at a Disney-affiliated restaurant in 2023.
- Disney argues the husband accepted terms that include mandatory arbitration, but the legal team disputes that these terms apply to his wife.
Disney is pushing for a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit connected to one of its restaurants. The company is leaning on terms of service from its Disney Plus streaming service and Disney World ticket purchases to make its case.
The lawsuit, initiated in February 2024, centers on Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old woman who passed away in October 2023. She suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a restaurant in the Disney Springs area of Walt Disney World Resort. Tangsuan and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, chose the restaurant because it claimed to prioritize accommodating food allergies. Tangsuan was highly allergic to nuts and dairy.
Following her death, Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Disney, seeking over $50,000 in damages. However, Disney countered in May by pointing out that Piccolo had accepted an arbitration clause when signing up for Disney Plus in 2019. According to Disney, this clause requires that any disputes, excluding small claims, be settled through individual binding arbitration, effectively waiving the right to a class action or court trial. This clause also ties into Disney’s broader terms of service, which cover all disputes involving Disney and its affiliates.
Arbitration is a private process that resolves disputes outside of court. While it can be a quicker and less formal way to resolve issues, it’s not always fair. Unlike judges, arbitrators don’t have to follow the law or legal precedents, and their decisions can’t be appealed.
Disney claims that Piccolo also agreed to the arbitration terms when he purchased tickets to Epcot in September 2023. These tickets came with terms that supposedly linked back to the broader Disney terms of service. However, Piccolo’s legal team argues that these terms were effectively hidden, making it unlikely that Piccolo was aware of them. They also argue that his agreement to these terms shouldn’t bind his wife or her estate, especially since visiting the Disney Springs restaurant didn’t require Disney park tickets.
The lawsuit criticizes Disney’s attempt to apply the Disney Plus arbitration agreement to a wrongful death case, calling it “absurd.” The case also highlights the growing use of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer agreements. These clauses often go unnoticed because people rarely read the lengthy terms and conditions they agree to. As a result, many consumers are unknowingly giving up their right to take legal action in court when they use services like Disney Plus, Netflix, or Hulu.
Disney’s attempt to use these agreements to dismiss the lawsuit raises important questions about the fairness of such practices, especially when they are applied to cases involving serious harm or death.
