Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions
Fixed headings to comply with the new style guide https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/CAT:Documentation/Style_Guide |
Copy editing |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Legal Lockout]] | [[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]]</ref> | In a wrongful-death lawsuit,<ref>[[:File:AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE.pdf]]</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</ref> | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
Dr. Tangsuan, a family medicine specialist at NYU Langone Hospital, had severe allergies to dairy | 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</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 user agreements: | In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[EULA|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 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</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>https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html</ref> | ||
===Legal arguments=== | ===Legal arguments=== | ||
Piccolo's attorneys filed a 123-page response calling Disney's argument "preposterous" | 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 him the 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 at the time Mr. Piccolo accepted the Disney+ terms, as Dr. Tangsuan was still alive | ||
*The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement was | *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 | *Disney had already waived any right to arbitration by participating in the litigation before raising the issue | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
==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|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 | 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=== | ||
The | The response detailed both procedural and substantive unconscionability in Disney's EULA: | ||
*'''Procedural unconscionability:''' | *'''Procedural unconscionability:''' | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
==Resolution== | ==Resolution== | ||
Following significant public backlash | 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== | ==Significance== | ||
The | 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== | ||
[[Category:Incidents]] | [[Category:Incidents]] | ||