In a recent turn of events at the happiest place on Earth, Disney is urging a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit tied to a fatal allergic reaction that occurred at Disney Springs. The case revolves around the tragic passing of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who reportedly suffered an allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road, an Irish pub nestled within Disney’s vibrant entertainment district.
The crux of Disney’s argument hinges on the fine print of a Disney+ trial agreement. Jeffrey Piccolo, the grieving husband, argues that his wife informed their server multiple times about her severe nut and dairy allergies. Despite assurances that the food was allergen-free, a meal at Raglan Road led to a disastrous allergic reaction. Now, Disney aims to redirect the lawsuit towards arbitration by citing terms agreed upon when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ trial back in 2019.
Disney’s legal team maintains that the Disney+ terms of use included a binding arbitration clause, clearly stating that any disputes must be resolved through arbitration, not court. This provision, they assert, applies broadly to all Disney affiliates, covering “all disputes” even those unrelated to the streaming service. Piccolo’s attorney, however, contends such a blanket clause is “outrageously unreasonable,” arguing that subscribing to Disney+ should not prevent someone from seeking justice in unrelated matters.
Disney has expressed profound sympathy for the family’s loss, clarifying that Raglan Road operates independently within Disney Springs, underscoring that the company’s involvement in the litigation is a defense against being implicated in the lawsuit against the pub.
As the legal drama unfolds, all eyes will be on the upcoming October 2 hearing in Orlando to determine the lawsuit’s fate. In the meantime, Disney fans and legal experts alike are watching closely to see how the courts interpret the far-reaching implications of a simple Disney+ trial subscription.
What do you think about Disney’s position on this? Do you believe arbitration clauses should cover such broad terms? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
Source: The Associated Press
