Let’s say a waiter brings you a food that you repeatedly say you’re allergic to, and you die. What if your spouse tries to sue you for wrongful death, but the lawyers for the company you’re suing try to dismiss the case, citing the terms of service of a streaming service that they (your spouse, not you) signed up for years ago?
While this theory sounds like a dark, dystopian joke, it’s also allegedly a real series of events involving Disney.
Jeffrey Piccolo added Walt Disney Parks and Resorts to his lawsuit earlier this year after his wife, Kanokpong Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction at a restaurant at Disney World. Piccolo is currently suing for more than $50,000 in damages, but his lawyers reportedly expect the actual damages to be much higher if a jury were to award the case. Disney’s lawyers have taken the position that the lawsuit against Disney should be dismissed because the plaintiffs agreed to an arbitration clause when they subscribed to Disney+.
Disney+ plans to crack down on password sharing next month
The tragic incident occurred on October 5, 2023, at Raglan Road Irish Pub, an Irish-themed restaurant and entertainment venue at Disney Springs Shopping Center in Orlando. According to the Associated Press, Tang Xuan was allergic to nuts and dairy products and had told staff “multiple times.” Despite being assured that the meal was dairy- and nut-free, Tang Xuan suffered a severe allergic reaction about 45 minutes after eating, was hospitalized, and later died.
Disney’s legal team argues that when Piccolo signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019, he agreed to arbitrate “all disputes” against the company. all He argued that he could not sue them, whatever they may be, and that he could not sue on his wife’s behalf because he had imposed an arbitration clause on her when purchasing the park tickets.
If you have the time, Disney’s May 31 legal filing makes for an interesting read, as it walks you through exactly what terms and conditions documents Piccolo must have signed, at what point in time, and how Disney thinks about the legal ramifications of each.
First, Disney’s lawyers say Piccolo allowed himself to be bound by this blanket 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 Disney World tickets in 2023, but Disney points out he must have clicked a box agreeing to the My Disney Experience terms and conditions, which say the terms and conditions apply to “yourself and any person for whom you purchase or otherwise secure a benefit, including minors.” Not surprisingly, after this complicated series of events, Disney doesn’t think it should have to sue in an actual courtroom for this alleged wrongful death.
Mashable Top Stories
Disney’s lawyers Times“Further litigation will only create unnecessary costs and waste judicial resources.”
Needless to say, this is a concern for all of us, because most of us have likely found ourselves lost in Disney’s legal labyrinth at some point.
In a statement to Mashable, a Disney spokesperson said: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. This restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, and we are simply defending ourselves against attempts by plaintiffs’ attorneys to include us in the lawsuit against the restaurant.”
It’s worth noting that Raglan Road Irish Pub itself is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, and the restaurant itself is not actually owned by Disney. While it’s still early days, a judge could see Disney as using this bold legal argument to avoid getting involved in what it sees as primarily a legal issue between the plaintiffs and Raglan Road Irish Pub.
Piccolo’s lawyers have called Disney’s arguments “fatally flawed” and “absurd.” In an August 2 response cited by The Associated Press, the lawyers wrote, “The notion that the terms consumers agreed to when creating a Disney+ free trial account should permanently bar their right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair that it shocks the judicial conscience.”
Ross Intellisano, an arbitration lawyer who is not involved in the case, said: The New York Times It called Disney’s claims “exaggerated.” Defendants tend to prefer arbitration to actual court proceedings because arbitrations are private and arbitration panels “typically do not award significant punitive damages.” Times Note.
A court hearing on the dismissal of Disney’s motion in favor of arbitration is scheduled for October 2nd, according to the Associated Press.
Updated: August 15, 2024, 12:00 PM PDT This story has been updated to include a statement from Disney.
