Disney Cites Disney+ Fine Print in Bid to Dismiss Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In a tragic case involving a fatal allergic reaction, Disney is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit by invoking an arbitration clause from a Disney+ trial subscription. The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo on behalf of the estate of his late wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, claims that Disney and Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant at Disney Springs, were negligent in preparing allergen-free food. Dr. Tangsuan, a New York doctor, died from anaphylaxis shortly after dining at the restaurant during a visit to the Florida resort in October 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that despite repeated warnings about Dr. Tangsuan’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, and multiple assurances from restaurant staff that her food was safe, she was served a meal that ultimately caused her death. Piccolo is seeking over $50,000 in damages and has requested a jury trial.

In response, Disney has filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Piccolo is bound by the terms of service he agreed to when he signed up for a Disney+ trial in 2019. According to Disney, those terms include a clause requiring arbitration for any disputes with the company, thus barring Piccolo from pursuing the case in court. Disney contends that this clause applies broadly, covering all legal claims related to the company, regardless of the context.

Piccolo’s legal team has strongly opposed Disney’s motion, calling the attempt to apply the Disney+ arbitration clause to this case "outrageously unreasonable." They argue that the terms of a streaming service subscription should not strip someone of their right to a jury trial in a wrongful death case, particularly one that has no connection to the subscription itself. Furthermore, they assert that Piccolo’s claim is on behalf of his wife’s estate, which did not exist at the time he signed up for Disney+, and thus could not be bound by the arbitration agreement.

The legal battle over whether this case should proceed in court or be forced into arbitration is set to be argued in an upcoming hearing on October 2, where both sides will present their arguments to the judge. The outcome could have significant implications, potentially setting a precedent for how broadly arbitration clauses can be enforced in cases involving large corporations.