Anna Betts in New York 

Disney defends use of streaming terms to block restaurant allergy death lawsuit

Jeffrey Piccolo filed wrongful death suit for $50,000 after his wife died of an allergic reaction at Florida resort
  
  

Groups of people stand outside by a Disney castle and statues of characters such as Mickey and Minnie Mouse
People gather at the Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom park in Orlando, Florida, on 30 July 2022. Photograph: Octavio Jones/Reuters

Disney representatives have defended the company’s legal strategy to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a widower over the death of his wife because of the terms and conditions he agreed to when signing up for Disney+ streaming service several years earlier.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death suit against Walt Disney World and Resorts earlier this year, after his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, died in October 2023 after eating at the Raglan Road Irish Pub at the resort near Orlando, Florida.

The lawsuit against Disney and the restaurant alleges that her death was a result of suffering an allergic reaction and that the medical examiner determined that her cause of death was anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system. Piccolo alleges that he and his wife both questioned the restaurant waiter numerous times when they dined and that the waiter assured them that the order would be allergen-free.

Piccolo is arguing the wait staff was negligent and is suing Disney for damages exceeding $50,000, per the complaint.

Though the litigation is still ongoing, a recent response filing by Disney’s lawyers made headlines this week after the company’s attorneys 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.

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.

On Thursday, in a statement sent to the Guardian, a Disney spokesperson defended the company’s legal strategy and said:

“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.”

Piccolo’s lawyers have called Disney’s argument for dismissal “surreal” and added: “In effect, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+.”

A hearing is scheduled for 2 October 2024 at 10am.

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

*