In a surprising and controversial legal move, Disney is attempting to use the terms and conditions of its popular streaming service Disney+ to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed over the tragic death of a 42-year-old woman.
The deceased New Yorker, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a pub inside the world-famous theme park in Florida.
Highlights
- Disney is using Disney+ terms to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo over his wife's death.
- Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan died from an allergic reaction after dining at a restaurant inside the theme park.
- The husband filed a lawsuit earlier this year, seeking over $50,000 in damages following his wife's death.
- Disney later claimed that Jeffrey waived his right to sue by agreeing to a binding arbitration clause when he signed up for Disney+.
Her husband, Jeffrey J. Piccolo, took legal action against the entertainment giant in February, but Disney is now arguing that he had inadvertently waived his right to sue the company when he signed up for a Disney+ trial.
The legal twist has been raising serious questions about consumer rights and corporate accountability in the digital age.
Disney is attempting to use Disney+ terms to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jeffrey J. Piccolo over the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan
Image credits: HenningE / Pixabay
Image credits: Rick Han / Pexels
It was during their October 2023 trip to the theme park when the series of events began.
Jeffrey, his mother, and Kanokporn chose to have dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at the resort and had asked the staff members repeatedly whether they could cater to Kanokporn’s allergies.
The couple was assured that her allergy to nuts and dairy products could be accommodated. She then ordered the vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings, and a vegan shepherd's pie.
However, about 45 minutes after the meal, the wife had a severe allergic reaction and had difficulty breathing.
The 42-year-old woman had died from a severe allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant inside the theme park
Image credits: Craig Adderley / Pexels
The complaint filed by Jeffrey said she collapsed and later died at the hospital.
The medical examiner concluded that she passed away from "anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” the lawsuit stated.
The bereaved husband filed a lawsuit to sue Disney for a sum in excess of $50,000 plus legal costs.
However, the iconic media empire wants to settle the dispute without going to court.
The bereaved husband filed a lawsuit against Disney, seeking more than $50,000 in damages
"We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief," Disney said in a statement. "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.”
In court documents filed in May, Disney said the lawsuit should be dismissed and resolved because of the terms Jeffrey agreed to while signing up for a one-month free trial of Disney+ in 2019.
“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause," the company stated in its motion. “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.’”
Disney argued that Jeffrey had waived his right to sue when he signed up for a Disney+ trial, agreeing to binding arbitration
They also said Jeffrey agreed to similar conditions when he created an account on Disney's website and app in the lead-up to their theme park visit.
When it was Jeffrey’s turn to respond, his lawyer argued that it was “absurd” to believe that the millions of Disney+ subscribers have waived all their rights to sue the parent company and its affiliates.
Jeffrey’s attorney, Brian Denney, wrote in the Aug. 2 filing: “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.”
The turn of events has sparked a discussion online, with one Reddit user asking, “How can a terms of service for a streaming platform from years before able to protect Disney from a resort stay?”
The case raised questions about consumer rights and corporate accountability in the digital age
“Makes you wonder what else they got away with because it wasn’t as popularized as this story,” another said, while a third wrote, “This is f---ing horrifying and disgusting.”
“Whoever came up with the scheme is an evil f---. Companies being able to get away with BS shenanigans like this erodes the public trust,” wrote another.
One said, "And now Disney will have a PR problem to go with their wrongful death lawsuit, much more costly for them."