Lawyers representing the family of a woman who died after accidentally ingesting an allergen at a Disney Springs restaurant have slammed The Walt Disney Company's "surreal" defence. Disney is arguing that the contract signed to start a Disney+ free trial necessitates arbitration for all future disputes, even those unrelated to the streaming service, effectively barring the family from pursuing a wrongful death claim in court.
Jeffrey Piccolo filed the suit in February, alleging that his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, passed away in October 2023 after consuming food at Raglan Road Irish Pub at Disney Springs in Florida, despite repeatedly informing staff about her severe nut and dairy allergies. According to Piccolo, the restaurant assured her the food was safe, but it contained an allergen.
In an August filing, Piccolo's lawyer Brian Denney labelled Disney's argument "fatally flawed", arguing it 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". Denney described the argument as "bordering on the surreal".
"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," Piccolo's lawyers argued. They further stated that Disney is "explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury."
The family's legal team asserts that Disney's attempt to leverage the free trial agreement is a clear attempt to sidestep any accountability for the tragic incident. The court hearing on Disney's motion is scheduled for October 2nd in Orange County, Florida.
Following the lawsuit, Raglan Road staff confirmed that they are now asking about allergies at the start of each order. This change, they claim, was implemented after the incident, though they did not explicitly confirm it was a direct result of the lawsuit.
The case highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the use of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. While such clauses can be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve disputes, they can also be used to disenfranchise consumers and limit their access to justice. The outcome of this case could have implications for other businesses that utilize similar clauses in their contracts, particularly with regard to potentially life-altering situations like wrongful death.
