Disney has backed down from its attempt to take a wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, after a public backlash.
The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, seeks justice for the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuwan, who died in 2023 after suffering a severe allergic reaction at Disney World in Florida.
Initially, Disney argued that the case should be resolved through arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of the Disney+ streaming service, which Piccolo signed up for during a free trial in 2019. Arbitration, often favored for its confidentiality and speed, would have kept the matter out of the public courtroom.
However, after facing significant public outcry, Disney decided to allow the lawsuit to proceed in court. “We believe this situation calls for a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who has suffered such a painful loss,” Disney Chairman Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to Business Matters. “As such, we have decided to waive our right to arbitration and continue the matter in court.”
Legal experts have questioned Disney’s original position, with some suggesting the company was “overstepping the bounds of contract law” by trying to apply the Disney Plus terms to an unrelated incident. Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, suggested Disney’s initial approach may have generated the very public scrutiny it sought to avoid.
The lawsuit stems from an incident that took place at Raglan Street, an Irish-themed pub located in Disney Springs in OrlandoBut it is run by an independent company. Mr Piccolo claims the restaurant failed to provide adequate facilities for his wife, who has a severe allergy to dairy and nuts, despite being told this on several occasions. Dr Tangsuwan later died in hospital, with the coroner ruling her death was due to anaphylaxis caused by high levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
Mr Piccolo is seeking damages from Disney in excess of $50,000 (£38,400), plus other damages for suffering, loss of income, medical and legal costs. Disney has said it had no control over the management or operation of the restaurant in question.
Legal analysts believe Disney’s decision to withdraw its arbitration claim was likely influenced by the negative publicity generated by its initial argument. Ernest Adwoa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, noted that Disney’s new approach in trying to extend its Disney+ terms to this case was “probably far-reaching” but ultimately “a weak argument.”
Disney confirmed that it is in the process of formally submitting the withdrawal of the arbitration request to the court.