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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
“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.” Last week, Piccolo’s lawyer Brian Denney had called Disney’s argument “preposterous … so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.”
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. CNN has reached out to Denney for comment. 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.
Disney’s U-turn: A Shift in Strategy
Disney’s decision to withdraw its arbitration claim marks a significant shift in strategy. The company’s initial stance had been met with widespread criticism, with many questioning the fairness of using a Disney+ trial agreement to prevent a lawsuit related to a tragic incident at a Disney resort. The public backlash, coupled with the potential for legal challenges to the validity of Disney’s argument, likely played a role in the company’s decision to reverse course.
The company’s statement emphasizing “humanity” and a desire to “expedite a resolution” suggests that Disney is seeking to mitigate the negative publicity surrounding the case and to present itself as a more compassionate and understanding organization. While the company may have legal grounds for seeking arbitration, the potential for negative public relations may have outweighed those considerations.
Legal Experts Weigh in on Disney’s Initial Argument
Legal experts have expressed skepticism regarding Disney’s initial argument that a Disney+ trial agreement could bar a wrongful death lawsuit related to a theme park incident. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, stated that “Disney’s argument that accepting their terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with that company is novel and potentially far-reaching.”
Jibreel Tramboo, a barrister at Church Court Chambers, described the terms of the Disney+ trial as a “weak argument for Disney to rely on.” These expert opinions suggest that Disney’s legal strategy was a risky one, with the potential to backfire in court. The company’s decision to drop its arbitration claim indicates a recognition of these risks and a desire to avoid further legal complications and negative publicity.
Implications for Future Cases
While this specific case is a unique set of circumstances, it raises broader questions about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. As companies increasingly rely on online agreements with fine print, the potential for disputes over these clauses is likely to increase. Courts will be tasked with balancing the desire for efficient dispute resolution through arbitration with the need to protect consumers’ rights and access to justice.
This case serves as a reminder that even large corporations are not immune from public pressure and scrutiny. Disney’s decision to reverse course on its arbitration claim suggests that companies may need to be more mindful of the potential reputational risks associated with aggressive legal tactics. The case also highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and understanding the terms of service for online products and services, as these agreements can have far-reaching consequences.
Disney's New Approach: A Shift Towards Transparency and Accountability
Disney’s decision to waive its right to arbitration is a step in the right direction. It shows a willingness to engage in a more transparent and accountable manner with the bereaved family. By allowing the case to proceed in court, Disney is acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and giving the family a chance to seek justice in a public forum. This approach aligns with the company’s stated commitment to “humanity” and suggests a shift towards a more empathetic and responsible approach to litigation.
This case may serve as a precedent for future disputes between Disney and consumers. The company’s decision to withdraw its arbitration claim could signal a change in its legal strategy, potentially leading to a more balanced and transparent approach to resolving disputes. Only time will tell how this case will impact Disney’s future dealings with its customers.
