Disney is facing a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida, and its legal team is taking a controversial approach to get the case dismissed. The lawyers argue that the plaintiff, Jeffery Piccolo, has no grounds to sue Disney and that the matter should be resolved through arbitration. Their reasoning? Piccolo signed up for Disney Plus and purchased an Epcot ticket through a Disney website.

^{The Basis of the Lawsuit}

Piccolo’s lawsuit targets Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, alleging negligence due to the park’s control over policies and restaurants. Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, explained to CNN in February that Piccolo’s motivation for the case is to prevent similar tragedies from occurring.

In October 2023, Piccolo, his wife Kanokporn Tangsaun, and his mother visited the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida. They dined at the Raglan Road Irish Pub in the Disney Springs area. Tangsaun, who had multiple allergies, trusted that the restaurant would have measures to handle allergens safely. Despite assurances from a waiter that the food could be made allergen-free, Tangsaun suffered a “severe acute allergic reaction” and, despite using an Epi-Pen, tragically died. The medical examiner’s autopsy attributed her death to “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”

^{Disney Plus Subscription Clause}

In an attempt to dismiss the $50,000 lawsuit, Disney’s court documents revealed that they are leveraging Piccolo’s 2019 Disney Plus subscription. According to the Disney Plus terms of service, users must arbitrate all disputes with the company. The clause states, “You and Disney agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes (including any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates).”

Disney’s lawyers argue that this clause extends to disputes involving the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts due to Piccolo purchasing Epcot Center tickets through their website.

^{The Push for Arbitration}

In May, Disney filed a motion requesting that the Florida circuit court order Piccolo to move the case to private arbitration, citing the avoidance of heavy litigation costs as the primary benefit. Piccolo’s legal team responded in August, calling Disney’s argument “preposterous” and “surreal.”

Piccolo’s lawyers stated, “There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death.”

They further argued that Disney’s attempt to bar a customer’s right to a jury trial with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is “outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.”

Judge A. James Craner, who is overseeing the case, has not yet responded to the arguments presented by Disney or Piccolo’s legal team. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent regarding the scope and enforceability of a company’s Terms of Service in legal disputes.