​Disney's Legal Gambit: Can a Streaming Service Agreement Prevent a Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

In a legal battle that has sparked widespread debate, Disney is attempting to use the terms of a free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo against the company. Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, Piccolo's wife, tragically died from a severe allergic reaction after dining at a Disney World restaurant in October 2023. The core of Disney's defence hinges on the arbitration clause within the Disney+ terms of service, which Piccolo agreed to in 2019 when he signed up for a one-month free trial. Disney argues that this clause, which requires disputes to be settled out of court through arbitration, applies to all interactions with the company, including incidents at their theme parks.

Piccolo's lawsuit claims that the restaurant at Disney World, Raglan Road Irish Pub, failed to adequately manage his wife's severe allergies to dairy and nuts despite being informed multiple times. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from these allergens. Disney, however, insists that the arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms, which Piccolo agreed to again when purchasing park tickets in 2023, covers this dispute. Legal experts are divided on the validity of Disney's argument. Ernest Aduwa from Stokoe Partnership Solicitors commented, "Disney is pushing the envelope of contract law," questioning whether terms for a streaming service can legally extend to cover such grave allegations at a theme park. Jibreel Tramboo, a barrister, noted that while the clause in the ticket purchase might hold more ground, the overall application of such terms to wrongful death claims remains contentious.

The case has been described as "bordering on the surreal" by Piccolo's legal team, who argue that Disney's interpretation of the terms is "preposterous" and "fatally flawed." They assert that Piccolo agreed to these terms for himself, not on behalf of his wife's estate, which did not exist at the time of the agreement. This raises significant questions about the scope of consumer agreements and their implications for future legal disputes. Disney's move towards arbitration, often seen as a quicker and more private resolution method, might also be motivated by a desire to avoid the publicity and costs associated with a public trial. Jamie Cartwright from Charles Russell Speechlys highlighted this aspect, suggesting that Disney's strategy could be to keep such sensitive cases out of the public eye.

This case could set a precedent for companies using service terms to limit legal accountability. If Disney's argument holds, it might imply that interacting with a company's digital services could waive rights to a jury trial in unrelated matters, potentially affecting millions of consumers globally. The legal hearing on Disney's motion to arbitrate is scheduled for October when both sides will present their arguments. This case challenges the boundaries of contract law and raises critical questions about consumer rights and corporate responsibility in the digital age.

Update - Disney will no longer ask a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit on the grounds that the victim’s family had signed up for its streaming service Disney+, the company said in a statement Monday.