Disney drops bid to use free trial 'small print' to stop husband suing over Irish pub meal death
Disney is attempting to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a husband over the death of his wife because of their streaming service small print back in 2019
Disney has backed down with its claim that a man could not sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.
Disney World is arguing that a man whose wife died after suffering an allergic reaction after consuming a meal at the Raglan Road Irish pub at their resort near Orlando, Florida, can't sue them because he agreed to the terms and conditions of a Disney+ free trial five years ago.
Kanokporn Tangsuan died from an allergic reaction to a meal at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida in 2023. Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the entertainment giants after claiming she "repeatedly" informed staff at the theme park of her severe allergies to dairy and nuts. The doctor was confirmed dead at hospital hours later.
READ MORE: Mpox outbreak: Top symptoms, how it spreads and Irish cases as WHO declare public health emergency
Disney claimed its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when he created his streaming account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.
Following a backlash, it has decided the matter can now be heard in court.
"We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," Disney's Josh D'Amaro told the BBC in a statement.
"As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."
Arbitration means the dispute is overseen by a neutral third party who is not a judge. It is usually a quicker, cheaper and less public process than a court case.
According to the legal suit, Dr Tangsuan's death was confirmed by a medical examiner "as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system." Her husband is now suing the company for a sum understood to be in excess of $50,000 plus legal costs.
Piccolo’s lawsuit, which was filed in February, claims that he, his wife and his mother decided to eat at Raglan Road on October 5, 2023 because it was billed on Disney’s website as having “allergen free food.”
Disney had argued it cannot be taken to court because - in its terms of use when signing up - users agree to settle any legal disputes with the company only via arbitration, meaning any dispute is overseen by a neutral third party and not a judge. They say the man agreed to these terms when he activated a one month free trial of Disney+ five years ago.
Mr Piccolo's legal team described Disney's arguments "preposterous" and "inane". His lawyers stated that Disney's case "is based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial".
Lawyers for Disney claimed that the Disney+ terms state: “When you create a Disney+ or ESPN+ account, you also agree to the Walt Disney Company’s Terms of Use,” which “govern your use of other Disney Services”. The services include “sites, software, applications, content, product and services”, which include the parks and resorts website.
Sign up to the Irish Mirror's daily newsletter here and get breaking news and top stories direct to your inbox.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
