Disney wrongful-death lawsuit

⚠️ A deletion request has been made for this article

There has been a deletion request for this page for the following reason:

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.

---

This request will be reviewed and acted upon by the wiki moderation team within one week of the template being added.

To appeal this deletion request, please make an entry at the Moderator's noticeboard.

Do not delete this page before removing all references to it:

• Forced arbitration with Smartwool socks (← links | edit)
• Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit (redirect page) (← links | edit)
  • Louis Rossmann - Video Directory (← links | edit)
  • Disney (← links | edit)
  • Talk:Disney (← links | edit)
• Vital Proteins sells products with terms and conditions inside the container (← links | edit)
• Disney+ (← links | edit)
• Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization (← links | edit)

In a wrongful-death lawsuit, 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.

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.

The EULA roofie attempt

In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to arbitration, citing two separate user agreements:

1. The Disney+ user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his PlayStation
2. 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.

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."

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)."

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".

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."

• 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+"

"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."

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."

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.