Can a grieving husband drag Disney to court?

A simple sign-up for a Disney+ account in 2019 put Jeffrey Piccolo at a legal disadvantage after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn ‘Amy’ Tangsuan, died from a severe food allergy at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida.

Aggrieved by the loss of his wife on October 5, 2023, Piccolo sued the streaming giant in February 2024. Tangsuan had informed the restaurant staff multiple times about her serious nut and dairy allergies before the couple ordered food – scallops, onion rings, broccoli, and corn fritters.

With the lawsuit entering into seventh month, Tangsuan’s death has sparked a critical debate about how corporations use online terms and conditions to evade accountability for incompetence, tardiness, and, in some cases, sheer negligence that can prove fatal for their clients.

In defence, Disney lawyers used Piccolo’s past subscription as a premise to invoke third-party arbitration, which means out of court settlement. Like many other companies, Disney+ has tucked in a clause under its “terms and conditions” that allows them to enforce third-party arbitration in case anyone files a lawsuit against them.

“Disney’s reason for moving to arbitration is that there are embarrassing facts that could come to light in litigation,” David Hoffman, a professor of contract law and civil litigation at the University of Pennsylvania, tells TRT World.

Piccolo’s wife had carefully checked Disney’s website to ensure that their chosen spot, Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant, was allergy-friendly. The couple was reassured by the Disney staff that their food was allergy proof.

Shortly after finishing their meal, as they strolled around the resort, Tangsuan suddenly collapsed.

Piccolo quickly administered an EpiPen injection but it did not work. She later passed away at the local hospital. The cause of her death was diagnosed as anaphylaxis “due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system".

Hoffman says Disney appears to be more concerned with managing the narrative and avoiding bad press, rather than worrying about the financial costs.

“For instance, Disney might have known that the Raglan Road Irish Pub didn’t have adequate protections against cross-contamination of food. They might not have cared about this, even though their webpage states they prioritise safety. What they really want is to keep such facts from becoming public or generating news stories about how you can’t be safe at Disney.”

Terms and conditions, a black hole

By having consumers agree to their terms, most private companies tend to use them to handle legal blowbacks in a “more controlled way,” Hoffman says.

“They are just in some ways changing the place. What they really want is ‘no big scandal’; their advantage for arbitration is that it is ‘private’. That is the big advantage.”

In its response to the lawsuit, Disney dismisses the relevance of whether Piccolo carefully read the terms or merely skimmed through them.

Piccolo's lawyers call this reasoning "preposterous," and other independent attorneys suggest that Disney’s claim—that someone agreeing to streaming terms could prevent any lawsuit against them—might be too extreme to be accepted by the court.

Brian Denney, Piccolo’s Florida-based lawyer, criticised the idea that over 150 million Disney+ subscribers have permanently given up their right to sue the company and its affiliates because of language “buried” in the fine print.

Shifting the goalpost

Apart from pushing for an out of court settlement, Disney’s second line of defence is that it does not own the restaurant and that its role is confined to being a landlord.

On August 19, following a public outcry, Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, announced the company was waiving its right to arbitration as the situation warranted “a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss”.

However, despite Disney's decision to drop its motion for arbitration, Piccolo's lawyer, Brian Denney, stressed in a statement to CNN that the company's legal clauses in terms of service remain unchanged across all its platforms. This includes its streaming services and park entrance tickets, which could present a similar legal risk for others in similar situations.

To this, Hoffman suggests that Disney's terms of service are unlikely to change.

"They simply state that any dispute arising from the use of Disney’s electronic services will go to arbitration, which is a standard practice. This does not mean changing the terms, but rather it reflects what happens when someone files a lawsuit in this kind of situation," he says.

While the lawsuit continues, it exposes a deeper issue about where corporate responsibility truly lies and questions about which entity should be held accountable still remain.

“No one talks about it, but that restaurant is also owned by a corporation. It is a different corporation than Disney that is really at fault, and ultimately it comes down to the insurance companies,” Hoffman says.

“This is just about the money. Disney cannot bring this person back; it’s a terrible tragedy. So the real question is, who pays? Is it Disney’s insurance company or the restaurant’s insurance company?”