A wrongful death lawsuit against Disney hinges on the terms of a Disney+ subscription, raising Disney is facing a wrongful death lawsuit following the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. Dr. Tangsuan’s husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed the lawsuit, claiming assurances that the meal was allergen-free were not honored. Despite notifying the server about her severe allergies, Dr. Tangsuan consumed food containing dairy and nuts, leading to anaphylaxis and her eventual death.
Disney has requested a Florida court dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit, arguing that Piccolo agreed to arbitration terms when signing up for a Disney+ trial in 2019. According to Disney, the arbitration clause requires disputes to be settled through individual binding arbitration and includes a class action waiver. Disney applies the same arbitration terms to Piccolo’s use of their website and app.
The Role of Arbitration and Waivers
Disney claims that whether Piccolo read the terms is irrelevant—by signing up for Disney+, he agreed to the terms. These terms require individual binding arbitration and preclude class-action suits, covering any disputes involving Disney and its affiliates. The company emphasized that the Irish pub where the incident occurred is not owned or operated by Disney, though it was advertised as having allergen-free food on Disney’s website.
Disney has asked a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the husband of a Carle Place physician who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant.
The company cited legal language agreed to years earlier when Jeffrey Piccolo,… pic.twitter.com/U78gCQfl0E
— Newsday (@Newsday) August 13, 2024
Legal and Consumer Implications
Piccolo’s lawyer contends that the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement should not indefinitely prevent legal action against Disney or its affiliates for incidents such as this. Brian Denney, the lawyer, described Disney’s defense as “preposterous” and “outrageously unreasonable.” Legal experts have also criticized Disney’s argument, suggesting it stretches consumer arbitration agreements to a degree that could harm consumers.
“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,” wrote Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, in the Aug. 2 filing.
This case could set a precedent for consumer arbitration agreements across industries, underscoring the importance of understanding the legal stipulations hidden within subscription services and other large commercial entities’ terms of service. The outcome of this hearing, scheduled for October 2, will be keenly observed not only by legal professionals but also by consumers concerned about their rights and protections.
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
Future Course of Action
Disney’s motion to move the case to arbitration, if successful, could limit Piccolo’s legal recourse to what the arbitration process permits. Piccolo seeks over $50,000 in damages for his wife’s wrongful death. As this case moves forward, it will bring much-needed scrutiny to the practices of large corporations and their use of extensive arbitration clauses that could potentially waive the rights of unknowing consumers.
“These circumstances have raised questions about consumer rights and corporate responsibility,” according to legal expert Daniel Zuniga.
The hearing set for October will determine whether Disney’s arbitration clause will stand or if Piccolo can seek justice through the court system. The final decision will likely influence how similar cases are treated in the future, and it could prompt changes in how arbitration clauses are used to protect corporations at the expense of consumer rights.
