Disney often finds itself in the courtroom trying to fight a lawsuit.
But the company has never tried to weasel its way out of one like this before.
And Disney used one terrible excuse to get out of a horrible lawsuit that left millions outraged.
Disney uses subscriber agreement for Disney+ to duck wrongful death lawsuit
Jeffrey Piccolo and his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, thought they were taking a dream vacation to Disney World last October when it became a nightmare.
Tangsuan died from an allergic reaction after eating at the Raglan Road Irish Pub.
She suffered from nut and dairy allergies and reportedly asked the restaurant staff if they could accommodate her food allergies.
The staff told Tangsuan that they could do it, but she passed away shortly after eating at the restaurant.
An EpiPen was used to try to save her life, and she was transported to a local hospital where she died of asphyxiation.
The medical examination found that she had elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system.
That is why Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney for his wife’s death in February.
Raglan Road is accused of failing to properly train its staff to deal with food allergies and not properly preparing the order.
Piccolo is seeking $50,000 under the Florida wrongful death statute
Disney is now trying to use a novel defense to get out of the lawsuit.
The entertainment conglomerate is claiming the lawsuit should be settled out of court in arbitration because of the terms of service for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service that Piccolo signed up for in 2019.
Disney claims that signing up for Disney+ meant that Piccolo entered a contract that requires all disputes with the company to be resolved through mandatory binding arbitration.
Disney ripped for using streaming service to settle lawsuit
Piccolo’s attorney Brian Denney called Disney’s argument absurd.
“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ subscriber agreement … which would support the notion that [Piccolo] 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,” Denney wrote. “Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd.”
Arbitration would settle the dispute through a third-party mediator.
“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,” Denney added.
Disney’s argument opens a scary door into the ubiquitous terms of service agreements and fine print that anything online has these days.
Agreeing to one of those could be signing all sorts of rights away because of digital fine print based on Disney’s argument.
DeSantis Daily will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.
