Disney seeks to dismiss wrongful death lawsuit over widower’s Disney+ free trial

Attorneys for Disney World are seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a husband over the death of his wife last year because of the terms and conditions he agreed to when signing up for Disney+ streaming service several years earlier.
In February of this year, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death suit against Disney on behalf of his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, a medical doctor from New York who died last year. His lawsuit claims that her death was a result of suffering an allergic reaction while dining at a resort restaurant in Disney Springs at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
According to court filings, because Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts, Piccolo claims that he and his wife both questioned the restaurant waiter numerous times when they dined there last year about allergen-free food. He alleges they “were assured that her order would be allergen free”.
But, shortly after eating dinner, Piccolo claims that his wife suffered a “severe acute allergic reaction”, and died later that day on 5 October. The medical examiner’s investigation “determined that her cause of death was anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system”, the lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts states. Piccolo is arguing the wait staff was negligent, and is suing Disney for damages exceeding $50,000, per the complaint.
Disney, in a court filing reviewed by the Guardian, has responded and argued that the case ought to be dismissed and settled out of court because Piccolo agreed to the company’s terms of use – which state that users agree to settle any disputes with the company out of court via arbitration – when he signed up for a one-month free trial of Disney+ in 2019, and again in 2023, when he purchased the Disney+ theme park tickets using his Disney account.
Attorneys for Disney claim that the Disney+ terms state: “When you create a Disney+ or ESPN+ account, you also agree to the Walt Disney Company’s Terms of Use,” which “govern your use of other Disney Services”. The services include “sites, software, applications, content, product and services”, which include the Disney Parks and Resorts website, they say.
Disney has argued that the terms of use include an arbitration clause that applies to “all disputes” including those involving “The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates” and that Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is an affiliate of the Walt Disney Company.
In August, Piccolo’s lawyers responded to Disney’s claims in a filing, arguing that the company’s position “is based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial enjoyed by them and any future Estate to which they are associated, and will instead have agreed to arbitrate any and all disputes against any and all Disney entities and affiliates, no matter how far removed from use of the Disney+ streaming service, including personal injury and wrongful death claims”.
“This argument borders on the surreal,” Piccolo’s lawyers added in the filing.
His lawyers have also argued that Piccolo agreed to the terms on behalf of himself, and not on behalf of his wife, or her estate, when he clicked ‘“agree and continue” on the Disney+ registration page.
A hearing has been scheduled for 2 October 2024 at 10am. Representatives for Disney and Piccolo did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Daniel Zuniga, a partner at Personal Injury of Florida law firm, who specializes in wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits and is not involved in the proceedings, told the Guardian on Wednesday that Disney’s argument appeared to be a “big legal stretch” and that in his many years of practice, he had never seen an argument like it.
“If someone’s doing a free trial for Disney+, I don’t think it’s rational or reasonable to believe that the average person will believe they’re signing away any type of rights that deal with a theme park,” Zuniga said.
“The consequences of such a ruling or such a holding could be catastrophic for the average person,” he added, because “big conglomerates just keep getting bigger and bigger, so how far up the chain can it go?”
Zuniga said that he would be “terrified for the average consumer” if the court rules in Disney’s favor, adding that he hopes “rational minds will prevail”.
“It really is unconscionable,” he added.