Disney is attempting to have a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a widower dismissed, arguing that his prior agreement to Disney+ terms of service requires the matter to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation.
The case involves Jeffrey J. Piccolo, who sued Disney Parks and Resorts in February 2024 following the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan.
The lawsuit claims that Tangsuan died after consuming food containing allergens at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney World, despite repeated assurances from the restaurant that her dietary needs would be accommodated.
According to the complaint, Piccolo, his wife, and his mother dined at the resort restaurant in October 2023. Tangsuan, a physician affiliated with NYU Langone Health, had severe allergies to nuts and dairy.
Despite informing the server of these allergies multiple times, the food served allegedly caused her to suffer an acute allergic reaction, leading to her death at a local hospital.
In response, Disney filed court documents in May arguing that Piccolo’s claims should be dismissed and settled through arbitration. The company contends that when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ account, he agreed to terms that mandate arbitration for any disputes, including those unrelated to the streaming service. Disney further stated that Piccolo also accepted these terms when purchasing tickets through the Walt Disney Parks website.
The key issue centers on the Disney+ terms of service, which include a clause specifying that “any dispute between you and us, except for small claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
Disney’s legal team argued that these terms apply broadly, even to claims unrelated to the streaming service.
A Disney spokesperson expressed condolences for the family’s loss but emphasized that the restaurant where the incident occurred is independently owned and operated.
“We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” the company stated.
Disney added that arbitration is widely recognized as a more efficient and cost-effective means of resolving disputes.
Piccolo’s legal team strongly opposes Disney’s motion, labeling it “preposterous.”
They argued that signing up for a Disney+ free trial should not result in forfeiting the right to a jury trial in a wrongful death case.
“The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial … is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair,” they stated in their court filing.
The legal dispute raises questions about the extent to which broad arbitration clauses can be applied, especially when consumers sign up for services that are seemingly unrelated to future claims.
Piccolo’s attorneys have asked the court to reject Disney’s motion and allow the case to proceed to trial.
The underlying lawsuit, which names both the restaurant and Disney Parks and Resorts as defendants, seeks $50,000 in damages for negligence.
The complaint details how Tangsuan began experiencing difficulty breathing shortly after consuming her meal. Despite using her EpiPen and receiving assistance from a bystander, she was ultimately unable to recover.
An autopsy report confirmed that Tangsuan died from anaphylaxis, with elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system. The medical examiner ruled her death an accident.
The outcome of Disney’s motion to compel arbitration could have significant implications for how broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements are interpreted in cases involving unrelated legal disputes.
