Disney+ defense: Disney says wrongful death suit should be thrown out because of streaming agreement

Could signing up for a streaming service trial negate the right to sue for someone’s wrongful death at Walt Disney World?

Read more trending news

That is the argument that the Walt Disney Company is making in the case of a woman who died after having a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at Disney Springs last year.

Kanokporn Tangsuan, a family medicine specialist in New York, ate with her family at Raglan Road Irish Pub in October. The restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, The Associated Press reported. It is however on Disney property.

In the suit filed by Tangsuan’s husband Jeffery Piccolo, that she and his mother decided to eat at the restaurant on Oct. 5, 2023, because its webpage on the Disney website said it had “allergen free food.”

He said that they had told the server that Tangsuan had a severe nut and dairy allergy. She ordered the vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd’s pie, the AP reported.

The family said the server told them that some foods could be made allergen-free and that they confirmed it “several more times,” CNN reported. Some of the dishes did not have “allergen-free flags” on them but the server assured them the dishes were allergen-free, Piccolo said in the suit.

Tangsuan had difficulty breathing about 45 minutes after dinner while she was shopping. She collapsed and despite self-administering an EpiPen, died at a nearby hospital.

A medical examiner said Tangsuan died from “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”

Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 for his wife’s death. He is also asking for damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income, and medical and funeral expenses, CNN reported.

Disney contends that because Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ free trial in 2019 and that in the terms and conditions that he accepted, he cannot sue for his wife’s death. He agreed to settle lawsuits against the company via arbitration instead of court when he indicated that he read the agreement.

“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause,” Disney said in a request to dismiss the case. “The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’.”

The Terms of Use specify “all disputes” including “disputes involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates.”

Disney said that Piccolo also agreed to a similar provision when he created an account with Disney for the parks’ website and app before the trip. He had purchased tickets for EPCOT on the website in 2023, USA Today reported.

Disney isn’t the only company to have a mandatory arbitration clause. USA Today said many contracts have similar clauses to avoid class action lawsuits and potentially large damage awards. Companies said it is fair for consumers and is faster and less expensive.

“Almost no one reads these contracts but the courts still enforce them,” University of Maryland law professor Jeff Sovern told the publication .

Piccolo’s lawyer said the company’s stance was “absurd” that all subscribers have waived their rights to sue Disney and affiliates forever, even if a case doesn’t have anything to do with Disney+.

“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,” attorney Brian Denney wrote in the argument.

Piccolo’s lawyer said that his client did not sign an agreement with Walt Disney Parks, and if he had, the terms did not extend to Tangsuan, USA Today reported.

“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” Disney said in a statement, according to USA Today .