Disney drops bid to use Disney+ contract to stop allergy death lawsuit

Disney has withdrawn from its attempt to submit a wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, following public backlash.

The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, seeks justice for the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died in 2023 after a severe allergic reaction at Disney World in Florida.

Initially, Disney argued that the matter should be resolved through arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of its streaming service Disney+, which Mr. Piccolo signed up for during a free trial in 2019. Arbitration, often preferred because of its confidentiality and speed, would have kept the case out of a public courtroom.

However, after facing significant public criticism, Disney decided to proceed with the lawsuit in court. Disney Chairman Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to Business Matters: “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. Therefore, we have decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter taken to court.”

Legal experts had questioned Disney’s original position, with some suggesting the company was “pushing the boundaries of contract law” by attempting to apply the Disney+ terms to an unrelated incident. Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, noted that Disney’s initial approach likely generated the very public criticism it was trying to avoid.

The lawsuit stems from an incident at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub Disney Springs in Orlandobut is managed by an independent company. Mr. Piccolo claims the restaurant failed to properly accommodate his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and tree nuts, despite informing him several times. Dr. Tangsuan later died in hospital, with a medical examiner confirming that her death was due to anaphylaxis caused by elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.

Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 (£38,400), in addition to other damages related to suffering, loss of income and medical and legal costs. Disney has maintained that it had no control over the management or operation of the restaurant in question.

Legal analysts believe that Disney’s decision to withdraw its arbitration claim is likely influenced by the negative publicity generated by the original argument. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, pointed out that Disney’s new approach in attempting to extend its Disney+ terms to this case was “potentially far-reaching” but ultimately a “weak argument.”

Disney has confirmed that it is in the process of formally filing the withdrawal of the arbitration request with the court.