Background of the Case
In a legal dispute that has drawn considerable attention, lawyers for Walt Disney World are attempting to have a wrongful death lawsuit dismissed based on an unexpected legal argument: a Disney+ free trial agreement. The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, centers on the tragic death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant.
The Incident
In October 2022, Dr. Tangsuan and her husband visited Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, where they informed the staff about her severe allergies to dairy and nuts. According to the lawsuit, the restaurant staff unequivocally assured them that the meal would be allergen-free. Despite these assurances, Dr. Tangsuan experienced a severe allergic reaction after consuming the meal, leading to her collapse 45 minutes later in a nearby store. Despite using an EpiPen and being rushed to the hospital, she tragically passed away due to anaphylaxis.
The Legal Battle
In February 2023, Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, seeking damages exceeding $50,000. He alleges that the restaurant staff were negligent in handling his wife’s food allergy, which directly resulted in her death.
Disney, however, has moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Piccolo cannot sue the company due to the terms and conditions he agreed to when signing up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019. These terms, which are also applied when purchasing Disney theme park tickets or signing up for ESPN+, require users to waive their rights to any potential class-action lawsuits or jury trials, instead mandating individual arbitration.
Piccolo’s Response
Piccolo’s legal team has strongly opposed Disney’s motion to dismiss, calling the argument “fatally flawed” and “bordering on surreal.” They argue that the Disney+ trial was signed up for by Piccolo individually, long before his wife’s death, and thus has no bearing on her rights or the wrongful death claim. Additionally, the park tickets he purchased in 2023 were done so individually, without Dr. Tangsuan’s involvement or consent.
“There is not a single authority in Florida that would support such an inane argument,” Piccolo’s lawyers wrote in response to Disney’s motion.
Disney’s Position
Disney has maintained that while the company is “deeply saddened” by Dr. Tangsuan’s death, they are not responsible for the events at Raglan Road Irish Pub, which they clarify is neither owned nor operated by Disney. Disney insists that the matter should be settled out of court through individual arbitration, as per the terms of use that Piccolo agreed to.
Upcoming Hearing
A court hearing is scheduled for October, where both sides will present their arguments. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how digital agreements, like those for streaming services, could impact legal rights in unrelated matters.
Impact and Awareness
Dr. Tangsuan’s death has highlighted the critical issue of food allergies, which affect millions of people worldwide. According to Food Allergy Canada, over three million Canadians report having at least one food allergy, and one in two Canadian households is impacted by this condition. Tragically, there is no cure for food allergies, making proper handling and awareness vital for those affected.
Dr. Tangsuan was a physician at NYU Langone Hospital and was just 42 years old at the time of her death. Her untimely passing has not only brought grief to her family but has also sparked a legal battle that may influence how consumer agreements are interpreted in cases of personal tragedy.
In today’s digital age, signing up for an app, subscription plan, or service often comes with a lengthy and complex set of terms and conditions. These documents are typically filled with legal jargon that can be difficult to understand, leading many users to simply click “accept” without fully reading or comprehending the details. This widespread practice can have unforeseen consequences, as seen in this case, where a seemingly unrelated agreement for a Disney+ trial is now being used as a defense in a wrongful death lawsuit. The situation underscores the importance of understanding the agreements we enter into, even if they seem trivial at the time.
There have been several notable lawsuits against large companies where unexpected or controversial legal defenses were used, similar to the Disney case. Here are a few examples:
1. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011)
Case Summary: In this landmark case, Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T over the company’s advertising of “free” phones, which they claimed was deceptive because it included hidden fees. However, AT&T argued that the Concepcions were bound by an arbitration clause in their contract, which barred them from participating in a class-action lawsuit.
Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of AT&T, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would have allowed the Concepcions to bring a class-action suit. This decision significantly strengthened companies’ ability to enforce arbitration agreements and limit class-action lawsuits.
2. Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rootkit Scandal (2005)
Case Summary: Sony BMG faced a massive class-action lawsuit after it was discovered that the company had included copy protection software, or “rootkits,” on some of its music CDs. These rootkits installed themselves on users’ computers without their knowledge and made their systems vulnerable to security breaches. The software’s presence was only disclosed in the fine print of the terms and conditions.
Outcome: Sony BMG settled the lawsuit, offering consumers replacement CDs, cash compensation, and the promise to stop using the rootkit technology. The case highlighted the risks of not reading or understanding the fine print in terms and conditions.
3. Uber Arbitration Clause Controversy (2015)
Case Summary: Uber has faced numerous lawsuits over its classification of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. In many cases, Uber argued that drivers were bound by an arbitration clause they agreed to when signing up for the app, which prevented them from joining class-action lawsuits.
Outcome: While many of these cases were forced into arbitration, Uber has faced significant public backlash and legal challenges over its arbitration agreements. Some drivers have won the right to sue in court, but the use of arbitration clauses remains a contentious issue.
4. Apple’s In-App Purchase Lawsuit (2011)
Case Summary: Apple faced a class-action lawsuit from parents whose children made unauthorized in-app purchases on iOS devices. The parents argued that Apple did not provide sufficient warnings about the potential for such purchases, which were often facilitated by deceptive design in apps aimed at children.
Outcome: Apple settled the lawsuit, agreeing to refund affected parents and introduce stricter controls on in-app purchases. The case highlighted the importance of clear and transparent terms, especially when dealing with services that could impact children.
5. Facebook’s Privacy Settlements (2012)
Case Summary: Facebook has faced multiple lawsuits over its handling of user data, particularly regarding privacy settings and the use of personal information in advertising. One notable case involved the company’s “Sponsored Stories” feature, where users’ names and images were used in advertisements without their explicit consent.
Outcome: Facebook settled the lawsuit for $20 million, agreeing to give users more control over how their information is used in advertising. This case underscored the complexities of terms and conditions related to privacy and user data.
