Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
Minor grammar edits. |
||
| 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 | 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 | *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 | *The estate did not exist when Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive. | ||
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was | *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, 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 | 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 | 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. | **"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 | "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 | 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== | ||