Disney wrongful-death lawsuit - Revision history

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: Revert if I’m wrong, but surely deleting article contents is fine?

2025-10-20T19:24:25Z

Revert if I’m wrong, but surely deleting article contents is fine?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 20 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#redirect [[Disney+#EULA_wrongful-death_case_(2023)]]		#redirect [[Disney+#EULA_wrongful-death_case_(2023)]]
	~~<!--{{Merge\|only needs EULA roofing and not every detail of lawsuit\|[[Disney+]]}}~~
	{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.

	~~Additionally, article has not been updated since January.}}-->~~
	~~{{IncidentCargo~~
	~~\| Company = Disney~~
	~~\| StartDate = 2024-02~~
	~~\| EndDate = End date~~
	~~\| Status = Pending Resolution~~
	~~\| ProductLine =~~
	~~\| Product = Disney+~~
	~~\| ArticleType = Service~~
	~~\| Type = Terms of Service~~
	~~\| Description = TBD~~
	}}

	In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jeffery J. \|last=Piccolo \|title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|date=2 Aug 2024}}</ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Rachel \|last=Treisman \|title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement \|url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|website=NPR \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|archive-date=21 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	~~==Background==~~
	Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Claire
	\|last=Fahy \|title=Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court? \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html \|url-access=subscription \|website=New York Times \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240814225148/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html \|archive-date=14 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	~~==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 [[wikipedia:PlayStation\|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 that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jordan \|last=Valinsky \|title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ \|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|website=CNN \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|archive-date=15 Aug 2024}}</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 an individual.
	*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms.
	*The estate did not exist when Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive.
	*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was explicitly limited to disputes concerning the streaming service.
	*Before raising the issue, Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation.

	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" />

	~~==Procedural timeline==~~
	Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August, "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

	~~==Key legal issues around consumer rights==~~
	~~===Meeting of minds===~~
	The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated fundamental principles of contract formation, including "meeting of the minds" (mutual understanding between parties) and "good faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

	~~===Unconscionability===~~
	~~The response detailed both procedural and substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA:~~

	*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''
	**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
	**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. Regarding the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

	*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''
	**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client."
	**"In effect, WDPR 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 do with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

	"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

	~~==Resolution==~~
	Following significant public backlash and media attention highlighting how this could affect Disney+'s 150 million subscribers, Disney withdrew its motion to compel arbitration in August 2024. Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated: "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations… With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."<ref name="nprdwd" />

	~~==Significance==~~
	The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in severe cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.

	~~==References==~~
	~~{{Reflist}}~~

	~~[[Category:Incidents]]~~
	~~[[Category:Lawsuits]]~~
	~~[[Category:Legal Lockout]]~~
	~~[[Category:EULA roofieing]]~~
	~~[[Category:Disney]]~~
	~~[[Category:Articles based on videos]]~~

Mr Pollo: making a redirect as the categories can help with navigation

2025-10-01T00:45:27Z

making a redirect as the categories can help with navigation

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 1 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Merge\|only needs EULA roofing and not every detail of lawsuit\|[[Disney+]]}}		#redirect [[Disney+#EULA_wrongful-death_case_(2023)]]
			<!--{{Merge\|only needs EULA roofing and not every detail of lawsuit\|[[Disney+]]}}
	{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.		{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.

	Additionally, article has not been updated since January.}}{{IncidentCargo		Additionally, article has not been updated since January.}}-->
			{{IncidentCargo
	\| Company = Disney		\| Company = Disney
	\| StartDate = 2024-02		\| StartDate = 2024-02

Mr Pollo at 23:17, 24 September 2025

2025-09-24T23:17:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, 24 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Merge\|only needs EULA roofing and not every detail of lawsuit\|[[Disney+]]}}
	{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.		{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.

Beanie Bo: Deletion request: This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article. Additionally, article has not been updated since January.

2025-09-07T15:14:03Z

Deletion request: This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article. Additionally, article has not been updated since January.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 7 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{IncidentCargo		{{DeletionRequest\|This issue is not a consumer rights' issue. A lawsuit over an allergic reaction is entirely irrelevant. If the "issue" is that Disney used EULA roofie to argue against the lawsuit, then that can instead be added to the EULA roofie article and/or incident section of Disney's article.

			Additionally, article has not been updated since January.}}{{IncidentCargo
	\| Company = Disney		\| Company = Disney
	\| StartDate = 2024-02		\| StartDate = 2024-02

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: Dont put a title on the lead section....

2025-09-07T08:24:41Z

Dont put a title on the lead section....

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 7 September 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:
	}}		}}

	~~===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===~~
	In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jeffery J. \|last=Piccolo \|title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|date=2 Aug 2024}}</ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Rachel \|last=Treisman \|title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement \|url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|website=NPR \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|archive-date=21 Aug 2024}}</ref>		In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jeffery J. \|last=Piccolo \|title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|date=2 Aug 2024}}</ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Rachel \|last=Treisman \|title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement \|url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|website=NPR \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|archive-date=21 Aug 2024}}</ref>

ClippyFellow47: Minor grammar edits.

2025-08-26T15:38:37Z

Minor grammar edits.

Sferaphim at 07:19, 13 August 2025

2025-08-13T07:19:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:19, 13 August 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	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]]:		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]]		#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation\|PlayStation]]
	#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023		#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023

Sojourna: clean-up

2025-07-13T22:45:14Z

clean-up

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 13 July 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:
	}}		}}

	~~[[Category:Legal Lockout]]~~
	===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===		===The EPCOT death lawsuit and Disney's arbitration clause===
	In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>~~[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE~~.~~pdf~~\|"AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.~~pdf"]] -~~ wiki.~~rossmanngroup.com - accessed 2025-01-29~~ </ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on October 5, 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">[https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney ~~"Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement"]~~ - npr.org - ~~accessed 2025~~-01-29</ref>		In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jeffery J. \|last=Piccolo \|title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf \|date=2 Aug 2024}}</ref> Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref name="nprdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Rachel \|last=Treisman \|title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement \|url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|website=NPR \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney \|archive-date=21 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	==Background==		==Background==
	Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html ~~"Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court?"]~~ - nytimes.com - ~~accessed 2025~~-01-29</ref>		Dr. Tangsuan, a family-medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy and nuts. She and her family chose to dine at Raglan Road, specifically because Disney had advertised that they accommodate guests with food allergies throughout their properties. Despite Dr. Tangsuan repeatedly informing her server about her allergies and receiving multiple assurances that their ordered dishes would be allergen-free, Dr. Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after eating. Although she self-administered an EpiPen, she later died at the hospital. The medical examiner confirmed her death was due to anaphylaxis from elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.<ref name="nytdwd">{{Cite web \|first=Claire
			\|last=Fahy \|title=Can a Disney+ Subscription Keep a Widower From Suing Disney in Court? \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html \|url-access=subscription \|website=New York Times \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240814225148/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/nyregion/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-arbitration.html \|archive-date=14 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	==The EULA roofie attempt==		==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]]:		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		#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		#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.		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>		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>{{Cite web \|first=Jordan \|last=Valinsky \|title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ \|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|website=CNN \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|archive-date=15 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	===Legal arguments===		===Legal arguments===
Line 63:		Line 63:

	==Significance==		==Significance==
			The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
	The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in serious cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.
	==References==		==References==
	~~<references />~~		{{Reflist}}

	[[Category:Incidents]]		[[Category:Incidents]]
	[[Category:Lawsuits]]		[[Category:Lawsuits]]
			[[Category:Legal Lockout]]
	[[Category:EULA roofieing]]		[[Category:EULA roofieing]]
	[[Category:Disney]]		[[Category:Disney]]
	[[Category:Articles based on videos]]		[[Category:Articles based on videos]]

149.22.84.24: Moved a quotation mark to where it seemed more appropriate. /* Key legal issues around consumer rights */

2025-07-13T13:41:56Z

Moved a quotation mark to where it seemed more appropriate. Key legal issues around consumer rights

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 13 July 2025
Line 44:		Line 44:
	==Key legal issues around consumer rights==		==Key legal issues around consumer rights==
	===Meeting of minds===		===Meeting of minds===
	The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds (mutual understanding between parties)" and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>		The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated basic principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds" (mutual understanding between parties) and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

	===Unconscionability===		===Unconscionability===

Schang1146 at 06:36, 26 June 2025

2025-06-26T06:36:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:36, 26 June 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\| ArticleType = Service		\| ArticleType = Service
	\| Type = Terms of Service		\| Type = Terms of Service
	\| Description =		\| Description = TBD
	}}		}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 26 August 2025
Line 26:		Line 26:
	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.		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>{{Cite web \|first=Jordan \|last=Valinsky \|title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ \|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|website=CNN \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|archive-date=15 Aug 2024}}</ref>		Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web \|first=Jordan \|last=Valinsky \|title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ \|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|website=CNN \|date=14 Aug 2024 \|access-date=13 Jul 2025 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html \|archive-date=15 Aug 2024}}</ref>

	===Legal arguments===		===Legal arguments===
	Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" and "fatally flawed" for several reasons:		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		*Mr. Piccolo brought the lawsuit as Personal Representative of his wife's estate, not as an individual.
	*The estate itself never agreed to any arbitration terms		*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 estate did not exist when 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		*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was explicitly limited to disputes concerning the streaming service.
	*Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation ~~before raising the issue~~		*Before raising the issue, Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation.

	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" />		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" />

	==Procedural timeline==		==Procedural timeline==
	Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August: "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>		Disney had initially participated in discovery and filed an answer to the complaint without raising arbitration as a defense. Only later did the company attempt to use the [[End-user license agreement]] (EULA) to avoid litigation. As noted in its second response, in August, "WDPR has waived its alleged right to seek arbitration by filing its Answer without raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and by serving two separate Requests for Copies under Rule 1.351(e)."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 3</ref>

	==Key legal issues around consumer rights==		==Key legal issues around consumer rights==
	===Meeting of minds===		===Meeting of minds===
	The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated ~~basic~~ principles of contract formation including "meeting of the minds" (mutual understanding between parties) and "good-faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>		The response highlighted fundamental contract-law principles that challenge the validity of using broad EULAs to bind consumers. As stated in the filing, Disney's attempt violated fundamental principles of contract formation, including "meeting of the minds" (mutual understanding between parties) and "good faith dealing".<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 11</ref>

	===Unconscionability===		===Unconscionability===
Line 51:		Line 51:
	*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''		*'''Procedural unconscionability:'''
	**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."		**"There was no showing that Mr. Piccolo was given any explanation of the arbitration clauses in The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement."
	**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. ~~With respect to~~ the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>		**"The so-called binding arbitration provision was merely contained in a link. Regarding the Disney Terms of Use, the link was not even referenced or hyperlinked on the Disney+ registration page. It was buried within another document that was hyperlinked."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 27-28</ref>

	*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''		*'''Substantive unconscionability:'''
	**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client"		**The arbitration provisions "could present a problem for more than just their own client."
	**"In effect, WDPR 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+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>		**"In effect, WDPR 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 do with Disney+"<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 30</ref>

	"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged ~~there is~~ some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>		"The Florida Supreme Court has acknowledged some overlap in the analysis of whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists and whether an arbitrable issue exists, noting: 'It is something of a chicken and egg situation as to which comes first.' This highlights the fundamental problem with modern EULAs - consumers cannot meaningfully assess what rights they're giving up when agreeing to terms that may be interpreted to cover any future dispute with any related corporate entity."<ref>Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Disney's Motion to Compel Arbitration, p. 19</ref>

	==Resolution==		==Resolution==
Line 63:		Line 63:

	==Significance==		==Significance==
	The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in ~~serious~~ cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.		The response specifically addressed how Disney's EULA-roofie attempt represents the type of modern consumer exploitation that traditional consumer protection laws fail to address: the potential dangers of overly broad arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and their use to deny access to courts even in severe cases like wrongful death. It demonstrates how companies may attempt to use unrelated consumer agreements to strip away fundamental legal rights, making it a notable example of the EULA-roofie phenomenon. The case also showed how public attention and backlash can sometimes force companies to reconsider such tactics. This case demonstrated how companies use complex legal documents and digital agreements to manufacture consent for terms that a reasonable consumer would never knowingly accept, as a customer might be less likely to sign up for a free trial of a streaming service if he knew it would absolve the company from accountability for killing his wife.

	==References==		==References==