Disney seeks to dismiss widower's wrongful death lawsuit because he agreed to Disney+ terms of service

Jeffrey J. Piccolo filed the lawsuit against Disney Parks and Resorts in February, a few months after the death of his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan. According to the complaint, Piccolo, his wife, and his mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Orlando, Florida, on October 5.

Despite repeatedly asking whether Tangsuan's allergies could be safely accommodated, they were assured by the server that it was safe for her to eat. Tragically, Tangsuan experienced a severe allergic reaction and later died at a local hospital.

In May, Disney responded by filing court documents seeking to have the $50,000 lawsuit dismissed and resolved through individual arbitration. The company’s argument hinges on terms Piccolo allegedly agreed to when signing up for a free trial of Disney+, and similar terms he accepted when purchasing tickets through the Walt Disney Parks website.

Disney’s legal team asserts that users must check boxes that link to the terms of use before proceeding, and that these terms include a clause requiring disputes to be resolved by individual binding arbitration with a waiver of class action rights.

The filing included a copy of Disney’s terms and conditions, which state that "any dispute between you and us, except for small claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration".

In a statement, a Disney spokesperson expressed condolences, saying: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

The spokesperson added that the company’s position does not affect any wrongful death claims the plaintiff may have against the restaurant itself, and noted that arbitration is often quicker and less costly than litigation.

However, Piccolo's attorneys have strongly criticised Disney’s reasoning, calling it "preposterous". They argue that the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement cannot be reasonably interpreted to cover claims related to injuries sustained by Piccolo's wife at a restaurant within a Disney resort.

The attorneys also pointed out that Piccolo likely cancelled his Disney+ subscription during the free trial, further undermining the relevance of the arbitration clause.