Editing Disney wrongful-death lawsuit (section)

==The EULA roofie attempt==
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:

#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

This represented a classic example of a [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Piccolo had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, he was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed his wife, even if the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.

Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was because the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html "Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+"] - edition.cnn.com - accessed 2025-01-29</ref>

===Legal arguments===
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" and "fatally flawed" for several reasons:

*Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as him the individual
*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms
*The estate did not exist at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was specifically limited to disputes concerning the streaming service
*Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue

The attorneys argued that "the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."<ref name="nytdwd" />