A New York doctor is fighting back against Disney's attempt to force his wrongful death lawsuit into private arbitration, arguing that the entertainment giant's terms of service for its Disney+ streaming platform are not applicable to the tragic death of his wife at one of its theme parks.
Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife Kanokporn Tangsuan died from a severe allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, Florida, is seeking damages exceeding £40,000. He claims the restaurant, despite advertising allergy-friendly options, failed to prevent the fatal exposure to dairy and nuts.
In May, Disney filed a motion to move the case out of Orange County Circuit Court and into private arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the terms of service agreed to by Piccolo when he signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019. This clause, Disney argues, applies to "all disputes" arising from any of its services, including theme park visits.
Piccolo's legal team vehemently rejects this argument, calling it "preposterous" in a 123-page response. They argue that the arbitration clause is buried within the terms and conditions and was not intended to cover circumstances like Tangsuan's death, which occurred while she was not a Disney+ subscriber.
They further point out that the terms of service were agreed to by Piccolo as an individual, not as a representative of his wife's estate, which did not exist at the time of his subscription.
The couple had specifically asked the waiter to confirm that their order was allergen-free and received reassurance from the waiter on multiple occasions. However, 45 minutes after consuming her meal, Tangsuan experienced a severe allergic reaction while shopping at Planet Hollywood. An unidentified individual at the shop called 911 after she administered her EpiPen and collapsed. Despite rushing to the hospital, Piccolo and his mother found that Tangsuan had sadly passed away.
A medical examiner later confirmed that the cause of death was anaphylaxis due to dairy and nut contamination, despite the restaurant's assurances of allergy-friendly preparations.
The case highlights a growing concern about the use of overly broad arbitration clauses in online terms of service, particularly when they are used to prevent individuals from seeking justice in court for serious injuries or deaths. Piccolo's legal team argues that Disney's attempt to force the case into private arbitration could set a dangerous precedent for millions of Disney+ subscribers who may find themselves unable to pursue legitimate legal claims unrelated to the streaming service.
The legal battle between Piccolo and Disney is ongoing, with the future of the case and its potential implications for online terms of service remaining uncertain.
