Disney has withdrawn its bid to stop the lawsuit
Disney has dropped its claim that a man cannot sue them over his wife’s death at one of their parks because he signed up for a free trial of Disney+.
Jeffrey Piccolo’s wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.
Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney, however, the company argued its terms of use, which Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.
Piccolo alleges that the restaurant at Disney World in Orlando, Florida, did not take enough care over here severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite being told several times about them.
Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan died in hospital on 5 October 2023, just hours after they had dined at the restaurant.
Her death was confirmed by a medical examiner ‘as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system’.
Piccolo is suing Disney for a sum more than $50,000 plus legal fees.
Disney was keen for the case in the courts to be halted and for the dispute to be settled out of court in a process called arbitration.
The company argued that it cannot be taken to court because in its terms of use, it says users agree to settle any disputes with the company via arbitration.
Piccolo reportedly signed up to a one month free trial of Disney+ in 2019 and agreed to the terms of use. Disney said he agreed to the terms again when he used his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.
However, lawyers for Mr Piccolo slammed the entertainment company saying their arguments were ‘preposterous’ and ‘inane’.
They said Disney’s case was ‘based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial’.
The legal filing said that the argument that these terms can be extended to wrongful death or personal injury claims ‘border on the surreal’.
Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, who are not involved in the proceedings, commented that Disney’s arguments were ‘pushing the envelope of contract law’.
He said: “The courts will have to consider, on balance, if the arbitration clause in a contract for a streaming service can really be applied to as serious an allegation of wrongful death through negligence at a theme park.
“Disney’s argument that accepting their terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with that company is novel and potentially far reaching.”
However, the latest update on the case comes as Disney dropped their claim against Piccolo’s lawsuit.
In a statement to the BBC, Disney representative Josh D’Amaro said: “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”
“As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court,” he added.
Partner at the law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, Jamie Cartwright, told the outlet that Disney’s change of heart was likely due to “adverse publicity” from its initial response.
“In attempting to push the claim into a confidential setting on what were very tenuous grounds, it succeeded only in creating the very publicity and attention it likely wanted to avoid,” Cartwright said.
Piccolo’s lawyers are yet to respond to Disney’s U-turn.
