Credit: Mika Baumeister, UnsplashDid you ever think a streaming subscription to a platform like Disney+ could send you to court or endanger your life?
This article is written with the utmost respect for those who have recently passed. It is not intended to diminish or disrespect their memory in any way. We aim to use this unfortunate event to educate our readers about their legal rights and the importance of thoroughly reading and understanding the terms and conditions before agreeing. We believe that awareness and knowledge can help prevent similar situations.
Walt Disney World Guest Death Sends Family to Court as the House of Mouse Attempts to Shield Themselves With Disney+ Streaming Service
Disney World is seeking to have a wrongful death lawsuit dismissed, which stems from a woman’s fatal allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant. The company is controversially arguing that by subscribing to the Disney+ streaming service, the plaintiff waived his right to sue the company in any future legal matters, including those involving life-and-death situations.
The case involves Dr. Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, who passed away after suffering anaphylaxis following a meal at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a dining establishment in Disney Springs.
Tangsuan’s husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, has filed a lawsuit against both the restaurant and Disney World, accusing them of negligence leading to wrongful death. The lawsuit claims that Disney had oversight and control over the restaurant’s safety protocols and training concerning food allergies. Piccolo is seeking damages exceeding $50,000 and has requested a jury trial.
His legal team argues that the couple had researched the restaurant’s menu beforehand to ensure it was safe, and staff assured them that the food was free of allergens. Disney is now attempting to move the case from court to arbitration, which is typically a faster and more confidential process.
In a recent filing in Orange County, Disney claims that because Piccolo had created a “Disney account” when signing up for Disney+, he agreed to the company’s terms, which require all disputes, including those related to wrongful death, to be resolved through arbitration rather than a public trial.
Heed This Warning: Be Sure To Know Everything You Are Signing up for Before Hitting ‘Agree’
Disney argues that continuing litigation would be costly and a waste of judicial resources, insisting that the case is bound for arbitration as per the agreement Piccolo allegedly entered into when creating his Disney account.
Signing a “Terms of Agreement” might seem routine, but it carries significant legal implications that can catch unsuspecting users off guard. This issue has come to light in a recent case involving The Walt Disney Company, where a Disney+ subscription is being used as a basis to push a wrongful death lawsuit into arbitration rather than allowing it to proceed in a public trial.
The incident underscores the importance of understanding the legal ramifications of agreeing to such terms, particularly regarding consumer rights and access to the court system. The case in question involves a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Dr. Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant within Disney Springs.
Piccolo’s lawsuit, which names both the restaurant and Disney World, claims negligence and seeks damages for his wife’s tragic death.
However, Disney is attempting to move the case to arbitration, citing the “Terms of Agreement” that Piccolo allegedly accepted when he signed up for a Disney+ account. This situation raises serious concerns about the potential dangers hidden in the fine print of online agreements. Users who sign up for services like Disney+ often do so without thoroughly reading the lengthy legal documents accompanying the process.
These documents frequently include arbitration clauses, which require users to settle disputes through private arbitration rather than the court system. While arbitration can be faster and less costly than litigation, it often favors corporations and limits consumers’ ability to seek justice through a jury trial.
In Piccolo’s case, the House of Mouse argues that by agreeing to the terms when creating a Disney account, he waived his right to a public trial, not just for disputes related to the streaming service, but for all legal matters involving The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates.
This broad interpretation of the agreement highlights how a simple act of subscribing to a service can have far-reaching legal consequences, even in situations as serious as a wrongful death claim. Consumers should take several precautionary steps to avoid falling into such legal traps.
First and foremost, it is crucial to read and understand the “Terms of Agreement” before accepting them. While this can be time-consuming, it is essential for protecting one’s legal rights.
Consumers should look out for arbitration clauses and understand what rights they may be waiving by agreeing to them. In addition, consumers should consider seeking legal advice if they are unsure about the implications of the terms they are agreeing to. Some consumer rights organizations provide resources and support for understanding these agreements.
Final Words
Moreover, legislative action could be pursued to require clearer disclosures and limits on the scope of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, ensuring that users are fully aware of what they are agreeing to and retaining their rights to access the court system.
The Disney case serves as a stark reminder of the hidden dangers in routine online agreements. As digital services become increasingly integrated into daily life, it is more important than ever for consumers to be vigilant and informed about their legal commitments, ensuring that their rights are protected in all circumstances.