In an unexpected twist, The Walt Disney Company is embroiled in a legal battle that has caught the attention of many. The issue centers on a tragic incident at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, Orlando, where Kanokporn Tangsuan tragically died from anaphylaxis after the restaurant allegedly failed to honor her severe nut allergy request. Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, is now suing on behalf of her estate.
Disney’s legal team has recently argued that this wrongful death suit should be dismissed because Piccolo had subscribed to a one-month free trial of Disney+ four years prior to this heartbreaking event. This bold move has drawn criticism, with attorney Brian Denney, representing Tangsuan’s estate, calling Disney’s position “absurd.” He asserted that Disney is trying to extend this argument to over 150 million Disney+ subscribers, potentially barring them from pursuing any wrongful death litigation against the company, regardless of the case’s connection to Disney+ services.
Disney contends that the Disney+ terms and conditions, which Piccolo agreed to, mandate arbitration for all disputes against the company or its affiliates. However, Denney countered that this interpretation is stretching reason. He pointed out that there is no clear evidence that Piccolo consented to binding his wife or her estate to arbitration regarding injuries at a Disney-owned establishment merely because he subscribed to Disney+.
The argument is further complicated by conflicting terms. While Disney clings to the 2019 Disney+ terms, Denney highlighted that more recent terms related to purchases on the My Disney Experience platform, which Piccolo agreed to in 2023, specify that disputes should be filed in courts in Florida and do not mention arbitration.
Denney’s stance is fortified by Florida legal precedents where estates are not bound by arbitration agreements signed by other family members. This complex legal terrain has led Denney to argue that Disney’s attempts to invoke arbitration are “outrageously unreasonable,” aiming to deny the estate its right to a jury trial.
This case continues to unfold as Disney seeks to move the litigation behind closed doors and favor arbitration, a strategy they believe will better manage the varying decisions of different tribunals. Meanwhile, Denney stands firm in his belief that there is no legal ground in Florida to support Disney’s arguments, making the case one that many will follow closely.
What are your thoughts on this case? Share your views in the comments below and engage in the discussion!
Source: Ars Technica
