Disney has come under fire for arguing that a widower whose wife tragically died after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a Walt Disney World restaurant cannot pursue legal action against the company because he had previously signed up for a free trial of Disney’s streaming service, Disney+.
Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old medical doctor, died after consuming food at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs, Florida, despite her family’s repeated assurances from their server that the meal would be allergen-free. Following her death in October last year, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, accusing the company of negligence in failing to properly train staff on handling food allergies.
However, Disney has sought to dismiss the case, citing the arbitration clause within the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, which Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for the service in November 2019. The company claims that this clause applies to “all disputes,” including those involving its affiliates, which include Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.
Piccolo’s legal team has slammed Disney’s defence as “preposterous” and “surreal,” arguing that agreeing to a streaming service’s terms should not waive his right to a jury trial in a wrongful death case. The case has sparked a debate over the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, especially when applied to unrelated matters such as personal injury or wrongful death.
While Disney maintains that it is simply defending itself against an attempt to involve the company in a lawsuit related to a restaurant it does not directly own, the case raises broader questions about the reach of arbitration agreements and the rights of consumers. Legal experts have suggested that a judge may find it unreasonable to extend the arbitration clause from a streaming service contract to a wrongful death claim, particularly in a case involving such serious allegations.
The case continues to unfold as Piccolo seeks over $50,000 in damages for mental pain and suffering, funeral and medical expenses, and loss of income. Disney’s position has sparked widespread criticism and raised concerns about the ethical implications of using such contractual clauses to shield against legal liability in severe cases.
Read more:
Disney claims widower cannot sue over wife’s death at theme park restaurant due to Disney+ subscription agreement