Disney is pushing to stop a wrongful death lawsuit filed on behalf of a customer with food allergies who died after eating at Disney Springs, arguing the plaintiff created a Disney+ account requiring him to resolve disputes with Disney affiliates through arbitration.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo of New York filed the case against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts (WDPR) in February in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Orange County. Piccolo’s wife, physician Kanokporn Tangsuan, died last October after eating a meal at the Raglan Road Irish Pub in the Disney Springs dining, shopping and entertainment venue.
The original complaint alleged that the Walt Disney website contains references to the restaurant’s “allergen-free food,” and Piccolo and Tangsuan explained to restaurant employees about Tangsuan’s need to avoid nuts and dairy because she was severely allergic to them. After dinner, she collapsed as a result of anaphylaxis due to consuming high levels of dairy and nuts, according to the lawsuit.
“Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation or other legal or equitable basis,’” attorneys for the theme park company said in a May 31 motion to stay the case. “This broad language covers Piccolo’s claims against WDPR. Because the parties agreed to arbitrate these claims, the court should compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.”
The motion points out that Piccolo created a Disney+ streaming account in November 2019 and agreed to terms and conditions that contain a class-action waiver and a provision mandating binding arbitration in disputes with Disney and its affiliates.
But Len Testa, co-author of “The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World” and a co-host of the Disney Dish podcast, raises questions about the legality of the terms and conditions (T&Cs) outlined in consumer accounts.
“I think it's a legitimate question for the courts as to whether the T&Cs for any multinational conglomerate have enough detail for the consumer to know exactly what they're agreeing to, especially in the broader context of terms like ‘affiliate,’ which appear in Disney's,” Testa said in an email to the Florida Record. “And not for nothing, there's case law that indicates the term ‘affiliate’ is ambiguous to start with.”
Disney’s website lists 46 firms among “The Walt Disney Family of Companies” and indicates that Disney’s products are made at more than 44,000 facilities worldwide, he said.
“It would not surprise me if a broad interpretation of the word ‘affiliate’ includes 100,000 different entities globally,” Testa said. “I doubt Disney themselves could easily name all of them, because they're probably adding and dropping companies every few days.”
Given the constantly changing number of affiliates, one must ask how average Disney consumers could know the extent of what they’re agreeing to, he said.
Testa also pointed to the example of Disney-owned Searchlight Pictures, which has its own set of “affiliates.”
“Let's say I'm an extra on a Searchlight movie and I get hurt during filming, sort of like the current Alec Baldwin case,” he said. “What prevents a lawyer from arguing that that injury should be resolved through arbitration because I once watched (Disney Entertainment-owned) ABC?”
Piccolo is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 against the defendant companies for mental pain and suffering, lost support and services, loss of companionship and protection, medical expenses and funeral expenses.