Disney Magic Takes a Somber Turn: A Man’s Unforeseen Legal Battle
It’s important to take a closer look at the fine print, especially when it comes to your Disney+ subscription agreement. Jeffrey Piccolo found this out the hard way, facing an unexpected legal challenge after the tragic death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered an allergic reaction at Disney World’s Raglan Road restaurant.
Piccolo is suing the Walt Disney Company, alleging they assured him and his wife—who had known allergies—that the food was “allergen-free”. Unfortunately, an autopsy revealed her death was caused by “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut.” Seeking justice, Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit, demanding more than $50,000, plus attorney’s fees, and a jury trial.
However, Disney countered with a motion to compel arbitration. They pointed out that in November 2019, Piccolo created a Disney+ account, thereby agreeing to their Subscriber Agreement. This agreement states that subscribers must resolve disputes through binding arbitration, waiving their right to sue Disney in court. It’s a clause few may have noticed—but it holds significant power in legal battles like Piccolo’s.
Disney’s attorneys also noted that Piccolo purchased Epcot Center tickets online, reinforcing that any legal issues must be arbitrated. It’s a stark reminder to carefully read subscription agreements, as streaming services’ fine print can have far-reaching implications.
As Disney’s battle with Piccolo unfolds, it highlights the broader issue of binding arbitration clauses in consumer agreements—raising the question of fairness in such legal provisions. Let us know what you think in the comments, and share your thoughts about the surprising extent of these digital agreements.
Source: Tony Maglio
