Disney rejects lawsuit over woman’s death at Disneyland, citing streaming service terms of service

Disney's legal team is arguing that a wrongful death lawsuit, filed after a woman died from an allergic reaction at a Disney park, should be handled outside of court.

The reason? Her husband allegedly agreed to Disney's online terms of service when signing up for a streaming platform. In a controversial legal move that has alarmed experts, Disney claims the man waived his right to sue when he accepted the terms while registering for a Disney Plus trial years ago.

The man’s attorneys responded, calling Disney’s argument "incredible," stating that anyone who signs up for a Disney Plus account, even for a free trial, would be unknowingly forfeiting their right to a jury trial forever.

The case involves Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor at NYU Langone, who died after suffering a severe allergic reaction during a dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub, located within Disney Springs at Disney World in Florida. The couple, concerned about her allergies to dairy and nuts, chose the restaurant based on Disney's online map, which indicated it catered to people with allergies.

Despite multiple assurances from the waiter that their food was safe, Tangsuan collapsed 45 minutes later and died at a hospital. The cause of death was determined to be anaphylaxis from dairy and nuts.

Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a lawsuit against Disney and Great Irish Pubs, the company that operates the restaurant. Disney, which leases the property to Great Irish Pubs, argued that Piccolo’s claims are solely based on the alleged misconduct of the restaurant.

Legal experts suggest that Disney might be liable because the couple relied on Disney’s online map. The lawsuit seeks damages exceeding $50,000 for mental suffering, funeral, and medical expenses.

Disney’s attorneys pointed out that Piccolo agreed to an arbitration clause when he created a Disney Plus account in 2019, which included a waiver of the right to sue. Piccolo’s attorneys argue that he couldn’t have known that by agreeing to the terms of service for a streaming service, he was giving up his right to sue in the tragic event of his wife’s death.

A Disney spokesperson expressed condolences but emphasized that the restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, and that the company is merely defending itself from being included in the lawsuit.

Experts like David Hoffman, a professor of contract law, believe that Disney's strategy might backfire, as it risks bad publicity over a case that may not be worth the effort. The broader issue highlighted by the case is the widespread use of mandatory arbitration clauses in corporate America, which prevent millions of workers and consumers from taking legal action in court. These clauses, originally intended for maritime companies in the 1920s, have evolved far beyond what Congress initially envisioned.

Hoffman suggested that Disney’s chances of forcing this dispute into arbitration are slim, but the hiring of a high-profile lawyer indicates that the company might be serious about using its terms of service as a legal weapon. Ultimately, the case underscores the reality that few consumers fully understand the dense terms of service they frequently agree to. Disney’s lawyers attempted to sidestep this issue by arguing that whether Piccolo read the terms is irrelevant.