Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

=== The EPCOT Death Lawsuit and Disney's Arbitration Clause ===

In a wrongful death lawsuit<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref>, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) & 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 ~~claims~~ Disney's negligence in accommodating her food allergy contributed to her death.<ref>https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref>

In a wrongful death lawsuit<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref>, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) & 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 with negligence in accommodating her food allergy which contributed to her death.<ref>https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref>

==Background==

Line 11:

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 when the food served by their ~~restaurant~~ killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related 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 when the food served by a restaurant on their premises killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related to the streaming service.

===Legal Arguments===

Line 49:

==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 & 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 demonstrates how companies use complex legal documents & 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 demonstrates how companies use complex legal documents & 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 ==

[[Category:Incidents]]

[[Category:Legal Cases]]

[[Category:EULA Roofie Examples]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 === The EPCOT Death Lawsuit and Disney's Arbitration Clause ===
-In a wrongful death lawsuit<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref>, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) & 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 claims Disney's negligence in accommodating her food allergy contributed to her death.<ref>https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref>
+In a wrongful death lawsuit<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</ref>, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts (WDPR) & 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 with negligence in accommodating her food allergy which contributed to her death.<ref>https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney</ref>
 ==Background==
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 . 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 when the food served by their restaurant killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related 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 when the food served by a restaurant on their premises killed his wife; regardless of whether the issue was related to the streaming service.
 ===Legal Arguments===
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ==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 & 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 demonstrates how companies use complex legal documents & 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 demonstrates how companies use complex legal documents & 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 ==
 [[Category:Incidents]]
 [[Category:Legal Cases]]
 [[Category:EULA Roofie Examples]]