Disney backtracks its atrocious response to wrongful death lawsuit after massive backlash
There are some stories you read about and think, “Is this really true? Surely, a megacorporation bending the law so freely is some kind of 1984 parody. Surely, the world isn’t already so exaggeratedly dystopian, right?”
That’s what I thought when I first read on social media that a woman died from a severe allergic reaction from a meal at Disney World, and Disney’s lawyers said her husband’s case should be thrown out and settled in private arbitration … because he had once signed up for a one-month free trial of Disney+.
Social media is rife with disinformation, I thought. We know the Disney corporation can be evil, but not this evil … Right? Unfortunately, the story is completely true. After initially only getting picked up by small outlets, the story started to be reported by major outlets including NPR, CNN, and USA Today.
Clearly, this level of coverage and the outrage it sparked were not in Disney’s calculations. On August 20, Disney announced that they would step down on insisting Disney+ gave them the right to arbitration … for this specific case.
Here’s what happened.
A tragic loss
Jeffrey Piccolo went to dinner with his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, and his mother at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, a shopping and dining complex which is part of the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to dairy and nuts, and Piccolo’s lawsuit states that they chose the restaurant because they believed the restaurant was equipped to deal with such severe allergies.
As per the lawsuit, some of the food they were served “did not have allergen free flags in them,” and Piccolo and Tangsuan again questioned the waiter. The waiter “guaranteed” the food was allergen-free. 45 minutes after the meal, Tangsuan began having heavy difficulty breathing. She tragically passed away in a hospital in the following hours, from “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”
The story is infuriating because Tangsuan and her husband took all the right precautions: They stated their needs and double-checked the food, plus Tangsuan was carrying and administered an epi-pen. Piccolo filed suit against Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney World Resorts for negligence in preparing the food properly, not properly training their employees, as well as for personal damages.
Then came Disney’s monstrous reaction. The company’s lawyers have two tactics. One is to distance itself from Raglan Road, which it says it has a “landlord”-type relationship with. In fact, Disney’s statement on this whole case is: “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.”
The defense mentioned in the statement is that Disney is trying to get the lawsuit thrown out, so that the case could be settled in arbitration instead. Arbitration has huge advantages for Disney. The reason Disney lawyers have cited is that arbitration is less expensive than litigation.
But more importantly, arbitration is done in private, rather than publicly and with a jury. There isn’t even public record of an arbitration taking place. Obviously, this lawsuit would cast Disney in an incredibly damaging light—they would rather avoid the public scrutiny and all the bad press.
Unfortunately for Disney, the motion—filed on May 31 but publicly revealed in early August—got plenty of bad press. Because the reason Disney said Piccolo must arbitrate is because of the terms and conditions he signed in creating a Disney+ account. Even just a free trial.
Always read the fine print
When you create Disney+ account, you know how you scroll past all the fine print and just say, “I agree”? One of the terms of use is 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.” There are similar terms when you buy a Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (WDPR) ticket online, as defendant Jeffrey Piccolo did in 2023.
But it’s the Disney+ terms that Disney’s lawyers specifically sighted. Their May 31 motion reads, “Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis.’ This broad language covers Piccolo’s claims against WDPR.”
It is ghastly and dystopian to argue that a wrongful death at an amusement park is covered by the terms of use of a streaming service that happens to be owned by the same mega-corporation.
USA Today asked Christine Bartholomew, a University of Buffalo law professor, if this ridiculous argument actually has ground. She told them, “Sadly, Disney could very well have a viable argument here. The Supreme Court has, time and again, treated these arbitration provisions as binding. It doesn’t matter if it’s in fine, teeny tiny print in the terms of conditions.” The moment the Supreme Court is brought up, everyone’s stomach collectively sinks.
It’s terrifying—especially since most of us have at least dabbled in Disney+. As such, this story sparked a public outcry against Disney. And, once it was clear the outcry wouldn’t die down, Disney responded. With mixed results.
Suddenly caring about “humanity”
On the week of August 20, a little more than a week after news outlets started to learn about Tangsuan’s tragic death and Disney’s lawyers dystopian response, Disney confirmed that it would withdraw its motion to arbitrate the case.
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D’Amaro told Ars Technica. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
At first glance, this is good news. But it’s good news for Piccolo’s case alone. Pay close attention to D’Amaro’s wording: “We’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration.” Disney is still contending that the Disney+ terms and conditions give the Walt Disney Company a right to arbitration.
Disney’s stance and D’Amaro’s statement is not, “We were wrong to use the Disney+ terms of services in this way.” Instead, the situation is, “You yelled at us, so we’ll waive it this one time.”
If, tragically, another case like this came up, Disney is already telling us they would try to pull these antics again.
So as for your rights at Disney Parks … maybe check the fine print at Universal?
Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com
