Disney claims widower cannot sue over wife’s death at theme park restaurant due to Disney+ subscription agreement

Disney has come under fire after claiming that a widower whose wife tragically died after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a Walt Disney World restaurant cannot pursue legal action against the company because he had previously signed up for a free trial of Disney’s streaming service, Disney+.

Kanokporn Tangsuwan, 42, died after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs, Florida, despite her family’s repeated assurances from the restaurant’s server that the meal would be allergy-free. Following her death in October last year, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, alleging the company was negligent in not properly training employees on how to handle food allergies.

However, Disney sought to dismiss the case, citing an arbitration clause in the Disney Plus subscriber agreement that Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for the service in November 2019. The company claims that this clause applies to “all disputes,” including those involving its affiliates, which include Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.

Piccolo’s defense team has criticized Disney’s defense as “ridiculous” and “surreal,” arguing that agreeing to the streaming service’s terms should not waive his right to a jury trial in a wrongful death case. The case has sparked debate about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, especially when applied to unrelated matters such as personal injury or wrongful death.

While Disney maintains it is simply defending itself against an attempt to involve the company in a lawsuit involving a restaurant it does not directly own, the case raises broader questions about the scope of arbitration agreements and consumer rights. Legal experts have suggested that a judge may find it unreasonable to extend an arbitration clause from a streaming service contract to a wrongful death lawsuit, especially in a case involving such serious allegations.

The case continues to unfold as Piccolo seeks more than $50,000 in damages for emotional pain and suffering, funeral expenses, medical expenses and loss of income. Disney’s stance has drawn widespread criticism and raised concerns about the ethical implications of using such contractual clauses to shield against legal liability in extreme cases.