Disney wants a Florida court to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit at a Disney-affiliated restaurant based on the terms of service for the entertainment giant’s website and video streaming services. The company argues that a couple agreed to an arbitration clause when one of them bought tickets to Disney World and, in an even more distant connection, when they signed up for Disney Plus years earlier.
He lawsuit, filed in FebruaryThe case involves a 42-year-old woman named Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died due to an allergic reaction that occurred after eating at one of the restaurants in the Disney Springs area of Walt Disney World Resort in October 2023. As noted in the lawsuit, Tangsuan and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, allegedly chose the restaurant because it advertised “accommodating those with food allergies” as a “top priority.” Tangsuan was “highly allergic” to nuts and dairy.
Piccolo, who represents Tangsuan's heirs, is suing Disney for damages of more than $50,000. However, in a motion filed in MayDisney alleged that Piccolo agreed to a forced arbitration agreement when signing up for Disney Plus in 2019. The video streaming service's terms of use state that “any dispute between you and us, except for small claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by binding, individual arbitration.” And the agreement folds other agree to Disney’s broader terms of use, including a similar waiver covering “all disputes” involving Disney and its affiliates.
Arbitration is a private legal process that involves resolving a dispute outside of court. While it is a suitable option in some cases, it is risky in others, as National Association of Consumer Advocates It says that “arbitrators are not bound to take into account the law and legal precedents” and their decision cannot be appealed.
The response argues that Piccolo's clicking a box to create an account should not bind his wife to the same agreement.
Disney argues that Piccolo agreed to the arbitration clause outside of Disney Plus as well. The motion says he agreed to the “My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions” when purchasing Epcot tickets in September 2023, and that agreement includes Disney’s terms of use. A response to Disney's motion In a document filed earlier this month, Piccolo’s legal team argues that Disney’s general terms were effectively made invisible. Piccolo “would not have received any notice” when he signed up for Disney Plus, he says, because Disney put the link to its terms of use inside another link on the agreement page. And when he agreed to the “My Disney Experience” terms, the document claims, he wouldn’t have seen those either, since Disney assumed he’d already seen them four years ago.
Either way, the response holds that Piccolo's clicking a box to create an account should not obligate his wife to accept the same agreement. And neither of these agreements were necessary to eat at the restaurant because No tickets are required for Disney Springs.
“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscription Agreement, the only agreement Mr. Piccolo purportedly agreed to in creating his Disney+ account, that supports the idea that he was agreeing, on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries suffered by his wife,” the lawsuit reads. “Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd.”
Unfortunately, mandatory arbitration agreements like the Disney Terms They have become increasingly common and even come into play When purchasing physical productsTo make matters worse, most people don't read the long terms they agree to, such as 2023. Study found Ninety-nine percent of people aren't aware that they're subject to forced arbitration when they use services like Netflix, Hulu, or Cash App. That means they're unwittingly giving up their right to a trial in court. When sprawling companies like Disney set these terms, it becomes even harder to know what you're agreeing to when you click a box marked “I agree.”