‘Borders on the absurd’: Dead woman’s estate rejects Disney’s claim that widower’s Disney+ membership means wrongful death lawsuit must be arbitrated

Does a Disney+ membership keep you and your loved ones out of the court system in the event of an alleged Disney-related death?

That’s what the Mouse-themed entertainment company would have a court believe — and what a dead woman’s family is fighting against.

Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan died in October 2023, allegedly because her meal at a Disneyworld restaurant in Florida contained nuts and dairy — well-known allergens to which she was deathly allergic.

Rather than contest the facts or litigate the merits of those allegations, however, Disney wants the case decided by their preferred arbitration organization. This result is mandated in this case, the company says, because Tangsuan’s widower signed up for Disney’s streaming service — and in doing so, signed a contract, which agreed that any and all disputes with the company would be decided through the use of mandatory, binding, third-party arbitration.

Attorneys for the deceased woman’s estate are, in turn, imploring a judge to reject what they call an “incredible argument.”

They say Disney’s position would mean anyone who signs up for a Disney+ free trial “will have forever waived the right to a jury trial enjoyed by them and any future Estate to which they are associated.”

“As can be seen from the prior sentence, this argument borders on the surreal,” the plaintiffs argued in a 123-page filing on Aug. 2.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in Orange County Circuit Court in February.

Piccolo, his mother, and Tangsuan ate at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs on the evening of Oct. 5, 2023. The trio only chose the restaurant in question because both Disney and staff there made it repeatedly and abundantly clear that Ragland Road had “proper safeguards to protect patrons” from food allergies, as Tangsuan was “highly allergic to dairy and nuts,” the lawsuit alleges.

“Raglan Road advertises and represents to the public that food allergies and/or the accommodation of persons with food allergies is a top priority and that patrons/guests may consult with a chef or special diets trained Cast Member before placing an order, and at all times material, Plaintiff relied upon these representations in selecting Disney Springs/Raglan Road for dinner,” the lawsuit filed against Great Irish Pubs Florida and Disney World Parks and Resorts U.S. reads.

But Tangsuan died from an allergic reaction later that same night. And that does not appear to be in dispute.

According to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by Law&Crime, the medical examiner performed a series of tests and reviewed Tangsuan’s medical records before determining that she died as “the result of anaphylaxis.” The manner of death was determined to be an accident. The autopsy report shows that the doctor had “very high” levels of nut and dairy allergens in her system when she died.

Attorneys for Disney took stock of the family’s lawsuit as involving “an allergic reaction the decedent allegedly experienced after dining at a restaurant called Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant, located in Disney Springs,” in a motion to compel arbitration filed May 31.

The company’s court filing then tersely rubbishes the lawsuit as alleging “an agency relationship between landlord and tenant,” and argues “the only facts supporting this theory are ‘representations’ about Raglan Road’s ‘allergen free food’ on the Walt Disney World website” while noting that “Piccolo alleges that he relied on the website in choosing to dine at Raglan Road.”

But, as the company’s filing goes on, it eschews any further reference to the merits of the case as Piccolo alleges in his complaint.

Much more important — to the point of controlling the issues — in the case, Disney says, is that Piccolo “ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against” Disney “or its affiliates,” according to the motion to compel.

The company’s filing sketches out the facts they believe are relevant:

Before eating at Raglan Road Piccolo created a Disney account. And purchased park tickets with that account before dining at Raglan Road …

In November 2019, Piccolo initially created a Disney account through the Disney+ website. Piccolo completed the registration webform by providing personal information, including his email address, and created a password. Before registering the account, Piccolo had to select “Agree & Continue” Immediately above was a disclosure notifying Piccolo that “[b]y clicking Agree & Continue, you agree to our Subscriber Agreement”. Piccolo then selected “Agree and Continue”. The term “Subscriber Agreement” was underlined in blue font and provided a hyperlink directly to the document. Piccolo also agreed to the Disney Terms of Use. Piccolo could not have created a Disney account without doing so …

After agreeing to the Terms and Conditions, Piccolo purchased park tickets and registered the decedent as his “guest”. Piccolo could not have completed the purchase without agreeing to the Disney Terms.

The company’s May 31 filing also references some legalese from that subscriber agreement they claim is operative.

“Piccolo agreed to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator,” Disney’s motion continues. “The Disney Terms delegate to the arbitrator — not to a court—’exclusive authority’ to resolve ‘any dispute relating to’ the arbitration clause’s ‘interpretation, applicability or enforceability’ and whether ‘any part’ is ‘void or voidable.’ It is hard to imagine a more expansive delegation clause.”

Earlier this month, Piccolo’s attorneys filed a response containing some harsh language to argue against the arbitration bid.

“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, the only Agreement Mr. Piccolo allegedly assented to in creating his Disney+ account, which would support the notion that he was agreeing on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort from which she died,” the family’s response motion reads. “Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd.”

Piccolo’s attorneys also say Disney is actually wrong about the agreement their client signed.

In a footnote, the lawsuit says the billion-dollar multinational company “incorrectly” relied on testimony “that the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement is between Disney DTC and/or its affiliates” by “erroneously quoting language from the Disney Terms of Use, rather than the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement.”

And, the plaintiffs argue, Disney is trying to enforce the arbitration agreement against the wrong legal entity.

From the Piccolo response, at length:

Second, even if WDPR had not waived its rights, it is attempting to enforce an agreement that it never signed against a party who also never signed. Specifically, the plaintiff in this wrongful death case is Jeffrey Piccolo, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan, not Jeffrey Piccolo, individually. (stating that only a decedent’s personal representative may bring a wrongful death action on behalf of the survivors). In its Motion, WDPR nonetheless improperly attempts to negate this distinction by making the preposterous argument that when Jeffrey Piccolo, individually, allegedly signed himself up for a free trial of Disney+ back in 2019 or bought Epcot tickets in 2023, he somehow bound the nonexistent Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan (his wife, who was alive at both times) to an arbitration agreement buried within certain terms and conditions.

A court hearing in the matter is slated for Oct. 2 before Orange Circuit Court Judge A. James Craner.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]