In a shocking legal move, Disney is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, the husband of Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died after consuming a meal at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. As reported by wdwnt, the company argues that because Tangsuan was a Disney+ subscriber, the case should be moved to arbitration under the terms of the streaming service’s subscriber agreement.
The lawsuit, filed in March, alleges that Tangsuan, who had a severe allergy to shellfish, informed the restaurant staff of her allergy and was assured that the meal she ordered was safe to consume. However, after eating the meal, Tangsuan went into anaphylactic shock and later died at a hospital.
Disney’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and move to arbitration hinges on an arbitration clause in the Disney+ subscriber agreement and the My Disney Experience app. As reported by Newsday, the company argues that by agreeing to these terms, the 153 million Disney+ subscribers have waived their right to a jury trial in any dispute with Disney and its affiliates, including wrongful death claims.
Piccolo’s attorneys have called Disney’s argument “preposterous” and “absurd,” stating that it is “inane” to believe that a consumer waives their right to a jury trial in any dispute with a company and its affiliates by agreeing to arbitration terms for a specific product or service. They also point out the issue of enforcing an agreement against a party who never signed it, as Tangsuan was not the Disney+ subscriber in question.
Legal experts have weighed in on the case, with one calling Disney’s argument “novel” and potentially far-reaching. They note that courts must balance the enforcement of arbitration clauses with the severity of the allegations, such as wrongful death. Arbitration, while often quicker and cheaper than a court case, also provides privacy and confidentiality, which may benefit Disney in this case.
If Disney’s argument is upheld, it could have significant consequences for consumers, potentially limiting their ability to seek justice through the court system in disputes with companies and their affiliates. The case also raises questions about the legal precedent for arbitration clauses in contracts, especially for streaming services, and how Disney’s use of these clauses compares to other companies in the entertainment and hospitality industries.
As the case moves forward, with a hearing scheduled for October, the outcome could set a significant precedent for similar cases in the future. The legal battle between Piccolo and Disney highlights the complex issues surrounding arbitration clauses and the potential impact on consumer rights in an increasingly digital world.
Disney’s Argument
Disney argues that the wrongful death lawsuit should be dismissed and moved to arbitration. The company points to an arbitration clause in the Disney+ subscriber agreement and My Disney Experience app terms and conditions.
According to Disney, by agreeing to these terms, the 153 million Disney+ subscribers have waived their right to a jury trial in any dispute with the company and its affiliates. This includes the tragic incident at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a Disney Springs restaurant operated by a third-party vendor.
The implications of this argument are far-reaching. If upheld, it could mean that simply subscribing to Disney’s streaming service or using its app would strip consumers of their right to sue the company or its affiliates in court, even in cases of severe harm or death.
Disney’s motion has raised eyebrows among legal experts, who describe it as a novel and potentially game-changing approach to arbitration clauses. The company appears to be leveraging its vast subscriber base to limit its legal liability across all aspects of its business.
Piccolo’s Attorneys’ Response
Piccolo’s attorneys have called Disney’s argument “preposterous” and “absurd.” The BBC points out that they argue that it is “inane” to believe that a consumer waives their right to a jury trial in any dispute with a company and its affiliates by agreeing to arbitration terms for a specific product or service.
“No reasonable person would believe that by subscribing to Disney+, they were giving up their right to pursue a wrongful death claim in court,” said Piccolo’s attorney, John Morgan. “This is a desperate attempt by Disney to avoid accountability for their actions.”
The attorneys also point out the issue of enforcing an agreement against a party who never signed it. Tangsuan, the victim in this case, was not a Disney+ subscriber herself and did not agree to the arbitration clause.
“It’s a stretch to say that someone who never even signed the agreement should be bound by it,” said Morgan. “This is a clear overreach by Disney, and we are confident that the court will see through this tactic.”
Potential Consequences
If Disney’s argument is upheld, it could have far-reaching consequences for consumers. The 153 million Disney+ subscribers may unknowingly be waiving their right to a jury trial in any dispute with Disney and its affiliates. This could set a dangerous precedent for other companies to include similar arbitration clauses in their contracts.
The legal precedent for arbitration clauses in streaming service contracts is unclear. While arbitration is not uncommon, experts suggest that Disney’s argument is novel and potentially far-reaching. Courts will have to balance the enforceability of arbitration clauses with the severity of allegations like wrongful death.
Disney’s use of arbitration clauses may be more aggressive than other companies in the entertainment and hospitality industries. However, without a comprehensive comparison, it’s difficult to say for certain.
The upcoming hearing in October will be crucial in determining the outcome of this case and the implications for similar cases in the future. If Disney’s motion to dismiss is granted, it could embolden other companies to include broad arbitration clauses in their contracts. If the motion is denied, it could set a precedent for limiting the scope of arbitration clauses in cases involving severe consequences like wrongful death.
Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the importance of carefully reading and understanding the terms and conditions of any contract, including those for streaming services and theme parks. Consumers should be aware of the potential consequences of agreeing to arbitration clauses and the limitations they may place on their legal rights.
Image credit: Wikimedia
