Disney claims widower can’t sue over woman’s death at theme park restaurant due to Disney+ subscription deal

Disney has come under fire for claiming that a widower whose wife tragically died after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a Walt Disney World restaurant cannot take legal action against the company because he had previously signed up for a free trial from Disney’s streaming service Disney+.

Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old physician, died after consuming food at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs, Florida, despite her family’s repeated assurances from their server that the meal would be allergen-free. After her death last October, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, accusing the company of negligence in failing to properly train staff in dealing with food allergies.

However, Disney has attempted to dismiss the case, citing the arbitration clause in the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, which Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for the service in November 2019. The company claims that this clause applies to “all disputes,” including those involving its subsidiaries, including Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

Piccolo’s legal team has labeled Disney’s defense as “ridiculous” and “surreal,” arguing that agreeing to a streaming service’s terms should not waive his right to a jury trial in a wrongful death case. The case has sparked a debate about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, especially when applied to unrelated cases such as personal injury or wrongful death.

While Disney insists it is simply defending itself against an attempt to include the company in a lawsuit over a restaurant it does not directly own, the case raises broader questions about the scope of arbitration agreements and the rights of consumers. Legal experts have suggested that a judge might find it unreasonable to expand the arbitration clause from a streaming service contract to a wrongful death claim, especially in a case with such serious allegations.

The case continues to unfold as Piccolo seeks more than $50,000 in damages for mental pain and suffering, funeral and medical expenses and loss of income. Disney’s position has sparked widespread criticism and concerns raised about the ethical implications of using such contractual clauses to protect against legal liability in serious cases.