Disney wrongful-death lawsuit: Difference between revisions

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>

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>

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

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>

 

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.