Disney seeks to dismiss wrongful death case over streaming service's trial TOS

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,281   +1,479
Staff member
WTF?! Corporate indifference is mind-boggling sometimes. In 2023, a woman died after eating at a Disney-owned restaurant. Her husband is suing on her behalf for wrongful death, asking for a mere $50,000. Instead of quickly and quietly settling the sad case for the paltry sum, Disney is asking the judge to throw the suit out because the husband agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration when he signed up for a Disney+ trial subscription in 2019.

In a controversial legal maneuver, Disney is attempting to convince a judge to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff agreed to resolve any disputes through arbitration years earlier when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service. The Washington Post notes that the lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, claims that his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida in October 2023.

Tangsuan, a 42-year-old physician from New York University's Langone Hospital, passed away shortly after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant. Tangsuan had severe nut and dairy allergies and had repeatedly informed the wait staff about her condition before ordering her meal. Despite these precautions, she experienced a severe allergic reaction, known as anaphylaxis, shortly after leaving the restaurant and tragically died at a nearby hospital despite receiving immediate medical attention.

Piccolo, who filed the wrongful death suit as the personal representative of his wife's estate, is seeking around $50,000 in damages. His claim includes compensation for mental pain and suffering, loss of income, and funeral expenses. For perspective, Medium reported that Disney World's average daily revenue in 2023 was between $40 million and $50 million US. So Disney World makes about 1,000 times what Piccolo is asking for in a single day. However, Disney is pushing back, arguing that the case should be removed from the courts and handled through arbitration.

In a motion filed on May 31 in Orange County, Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Disney contended that Piccolo had agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the company when he signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019. The company further argued that similar arbitration language was agreed upon when Piccolo used the "My Disney Experience" app to purchase tickets to Epcot in September 2023, just a month before the incident.

Piccolo's attorneys have vehemently opposed Disney's motion, calling it "preposterous" and "outrageously unreasonable." In a response filed on August 2, they argued that the arbitration agreement from a Disney+ trial account should not bar Piccolo from pursuing a jury trial in a wrongful death case. They also emphasized that the suit was filed on behalf of Tangsuan's estate, not Piccolo personally, further challenging the relevance of the arbitration agreement.

As the legal battle unfolds, both sides await a decision from the court on whether the case will proceed to trial or be diverted to arbitration.

Image credit: Quack Attack

Permalink to story:

 
Pay attention.

Even if this gets thrown out today, its what tomorrow's legal landscape will look like.

Disney's top notch lawyers didn't put this out there without thinking through potential blowback and backlash, but it's potentially worth it for them to test the legal waters here and refine as they go.
 
Disney has become a garbage dump that is impossible to measure... but I hate to see how inefficient the justice system is and no one can do anything about it.

The mere fact that the outcome can be drastically influenced by the judge and how much you can afford to pay for lawyers undermines any claim that it is a "justice system."
 
Now keep in mind that the lawyers cost way, way more than $50k this guy is asking for a restaurant that killed a person with allergies via negligence.
They would rather *deliberately burn money and fight* the poor widower than offer condolences, put in place more allergy checks, etc which would be the right thing to do and cost much less.
 
How in the hell does agreeing to arbitration in ToS of Disney+ relevant to eating at a Disney-owned restaurant?

ToS for Disney+ are Terms of Service _for the Disney+ service specifically_ - not for every interaction with Disney in general. Get bent, Disney lawyers. That's a scummy thing to even try to claim.
 
It's one of the reasons I will never support Disney with my money. They have become crooks and not what Walt Disney would have ever sanctioned ....
 
It's not about the $50.000 that person wants, but the type of precedent that would create if Disney would just start giving out money to whoever wants to sue them.

Non disclosure agreements.

Really was cheaper to settle quickly with NDA - but as others alluded to - they could be testing the water , if it fails they can rejig the main terms , that actually override the Disney Plus as per its terms ( Louis Rossman YT )

Still the Estate as an injured party signed no contract with Disney
 
It's not about the $50.000 that person wants, but the type of precedent that would create if Disney would just start giving out money to whoever wants to sue them.
50.000USD for having your spouse killed seems… in the most reasonable end of reasonable… so yea having it as precedent seems fine by me.

Also the precedent of ‘accepting ToS for a movie subscription not invalidating any claims against the owner of said streaming service entirely unrelated to the streaming service’ seems like a precedent any reasonable judicial system should set.

It’s like getting murdered by your baker with an axe and him asking to not be held accountable because the ToS signed when buying a loaf of rye from him explicitly states that lawsuits against him should be settled privately.

Makes not an ounce of sense.

Edit; just talked to my mother (judge) about this, and the main argument of the case is that Disney does not own or operate the restaurant, but rather rents the space to a third party.

Why the legal team would feel the need to include the ridiculous claims found in the article when they have a perfectly reasonable defense is beyond me (and also my mother xD), but yea… lawyers be lawyering… guess they could bill extra hours by including additional (ridiculous) reasons for dismissing the lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Thats Disney for you hands down
Next up. Theybdenand he watch everybody KK has spewed forth destroying locations Legacy. Since the trial for streaming also wants customer feedback!
IE they want to kill him as well as his wife only his is a slower death by torture.
 
Back