Disney has reversed course on a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widower of a woman who died after eating at a resort restaurant, saying the matter can now proceed to court. This decision comes after the company faced criticism for initially arguing that the lawsuit should be settled through arbitration due to the widower's Disney+ subscription agreement.

Previously, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts had argued in court documents that the widower’s Disney+ streaming service contract means he cannot sue for the alleged wrongful death of his wife. This argument sparked outrage and accusations of Disney attempting to exploit a grieving family and avoid accountability.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo alleged that his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction from a meal she ate at a park restaurant in 2023. But Disney tried to get the lawsuit tossed by asking the court to move the dispute to arbitration, meaning the case would not go before a jury or otherwise continue in court. This maneuver was seen by many as an attempt to circumvent the judicial process and limit the plaintiff's rights.

Disney’s argument was that Piccolo had allegedly entered into a subscriber agreement when signing up for a Disney+ trial years ago – which requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. This argument was based on the fine print of the Disney+ subscription agreement, which many users likely agreed to without fully understanding its implications.

Company lawyers also claimed that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of Piccolo’s late wife. This argument stretched the terms of the agreement to an extreme extent and further fueled the public's anger towards Disney's actions.

In a statement sent to CNN on Monday, Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, said the company was waiving its right to arbitration. This reversal of course reflects the mounting public pressure and the understanding that Disney's initial arguments were inappropriate and insensitive.

“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” he said in the statement.

“As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.” This statement acknowledges the emotional toll on the family and demonstrates a shift towards empathy and a willingness to let the legal process play out fairly.

In a statement to CNN, Piccolo’s lawyer Brian Denney said that though Disney had withdrawn its motion to arbitrate, those legal clauses still exist across Disney’s platforms, including on its streaming services and park entrance tickets – posing a similar legal risk for other people in Piccolo’s position. Denney's statement raises concerns about the prevalence of such clauses in user agreements and the potential for similar situations in the future.

“Attempts by corporations like Disney to avoid jury trials should be looked at with skepticism,” he said, calling jury trials a “bedrock of our judicial system.” Piccolo will now continue pursuing the case in court, he said. Denney's stance underscores the importance of protecting the right to a jury trial and the need for greater scrutiny of corporate practices that seek to circumvent it.

Last week after Disney’s initial argument, Denney had called the move “preposterous … so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.” These strong words highlight the public's sense of outrage and the belief that Disney's actions were morally reprehensible.

Piccolo’s lawyers also noted that the widower believed he had only signed up for a month-long free streaming trial, as it appears he canceled the subscription before he was ever charged. This point underscores the complexity of user agreements and the ease with which individuals can be caught in legal traps without realizing it.

Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 pursuant to Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, as well as damages for mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income and medical and funeral expenses. This pursuit of damages reflects the significant impact of Tangsuan's death on the family and the need for justice to be served.

The case is expected to proceed in court, where a jury will determine whether Disney is liable for the wrongful death of Piccolo's wife. This case serves as a reminder of the power dynamics between corporations and individuals and the importance of holding corporations accountable for their actions.

The case raises important questions about the use of arbitration clauses in user agreements, particularly when they are used to shield corporations from liability. It also highlights the need for greater transparency and clarity in such agreements, ensuring that users understand the legal implications of their actions. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for other individuals facing similar situations, potentially setting a precedent for future legal challenges.

The case highlights a growing concern about the use of arbitration clauses in user agreements, which can limit consumers' rights and protect companies from accountability. This case serves as a reminder for individuals to carefully review the terms and conditions of online services and be wary of clauses that may restrict their rights.

The case also raises questions about the role of corporations in providing safe environments for consumers. The case emphasizes the need for corporations to prioritize the safety and well-being of their customers and to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to address potential risks.

Ultimately, this case will be decided in court, and the outcome will be closely watched by both the public and the legal community. It is a case that could have significant ramifications for how companies interact with their customers and the extent to which they can utilize arbitration clauses to limit their liability.