Disney is in hot water with its fans these days.
The company’s latest stunt sparked widespread outrage.
And Disney picked one fight that has fans ready to revolt after it backfired in the worst way.
Disney tried to use a Disney+ user agreement to escape wrongful death lawsuit
Disney faced a massive backlash for a legal maneuver the company used to avoid going to trial in a wrongful death lawsuit.
Jeffrey Piccolo and his wife Kanokporn Tangsuan took a vacation to Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando, Florida last October.
The couple decided to eat at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in the Disney Springs shopping area.
Tangsuan had severe allergies to nuts and dairy.
She checked with the staff before their meal to see if the restaurant could manage her dietary request.
The couple went ahead and ate there after the staff assured them they could handle the request.
Tangsuan left Raglan Road to go shopping and died from an allergic reaction.
Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the restaurant.
Disney claimed that because he signed up for a free trial membership of the Disney+ streaming service its user agreement required he settle any legal disputes with the company through third-party arbitration.
Piccolo’s legal team cried foul at using the Disney+ user agreement to avoid the lawsuit.
Disney caved after backlash poured in from customers and the legal community.
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” Disney theme park division chair Josh D’Amaro said in a statement announcing it was dropping the arbitration request. “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.”
Disney’s risky legal strategy
Disney+ has millions of subscribers who could be subject to the user agreement in a potential legal dispute with the company.
“Although Disney has withdrawn its motion, the arbitration clauses they relied upon in their motion still exist on their various platforms,” attorney Brian Denney said. “This potentially puts other people injured by Disney’s negligence at risk of facing a similar legal challenge.”
Disney faces lawsuits every year from visitors who get hurt while visiting one of the company’s theme parks.
Miami lawyer Aaron Davis told Florida Politics that Disney could try to use the Disney+ user agreement defense again.
“How many times are they going to try to do this?” Davis asked. “What’s to stop Disney from trying this again for the next Disney+ subscriber that walks into Epcot? You know how many people are in that boat?”
Davis thought that Disney backed off because the story was picked up by national news and the company faced negative headlines.
Entertainment law attorney Camron Dowlatshahi thought it was a coin flip if Disney would win but Piccolo’s attorneys could not claim he did not read the user agreement.
“I don’t believe a Judge would have granted the motion to compel arbitration, but it could have happened. It’s possible,” Dowlatshahi said. “But plaintiffs’ attorneys wouldn’t be able to argue that the consumer didn’t read the agreement. Even though consumers often don’t read these agreements, that argument doesn’t hold up in court.”
Companies are counting on customers ignoring what is in user agreements.
DeSantis Daily will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.
