While it is cursory for companies to include important terms and conditions in fine print, in a bizarre case Disney is using the terms that a user agreed to while signing up for a free service of its streaming service Disney+ to block a lawsuit related to the death of his wife at a restaurant at Disney Springs.

For context, on October 5, 2023, Jeffrey J. Piccolo, his mother Jackie Piccolo, and his wife Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan went to the Raglan Road Irish Pub at the resort near Orlando, Florida. They told their server specifically about Tangsuan being allergic to nuts and dairy.

They ordered dishes named “Sure I’m Frittered,” “Scallop Forest,” “This Shepherd Went Vegan” and “Onion Rings” after the “waiter’s guarantee that these food items would be allergen-free.”

According to the lawsuit, when the waiter arrived with their order, some dishes did not carry an allergen-free tag. They questioned the waiter who “once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to Kanokporn Tangsuan was allergen free.”

Meanwhile, less than one hour after having the meal, Tangsuan had a severe breathing problem and collapsed which the complaint says was the result of a “severe acute allergic reaction to the food served at Raglan.” Her autopsy found that Tangsuan died from anaphylaxis and had elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system.

Jeffrey Piccolo has named both the restaurant as well as Disney Parks and Resorts as defendants in his lawsuit and is seeking more than $50,000 in damages.

Disney Says It Cannot Be Sued in This Case

Providing the rationale for making Disney a defendant in the case, the lawsuit says that the company was the beneficial owner of the place and marketed it as “Disney Springs.” It adds that Disney “had control over the menu of food offered, the hiring and/or training of the wait staff, and the policies and procedures as it pertains to food allergies” at Disney Springs restaurants – including Raglan Road.

The complaint adds that they relied on Disney’s advertisement that “food allergies and/or the accommodation of persons with food allergies is a top priority at its parks and resorts,” while selecting the Raglan Road restaurant.

Meanwhile, Disney has argued that it cannot be sued in this case. Firstly, the company says that it doesn’t own the restaurant. According to a Disney spokesperson, “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

In an extremely dystopian twist, Disney also cites a previous “term” that Jeffrey Piccolo agreed to while signing up for Disney+ wherein he agreed to give away his right to sue the company and settle any dispute through arbitration.

Why Reading the Fine Print Is Important

Disney’s use of an obscure fine print term in a previous agreement signed in 2019 to deny Piccolo legal recourse should be absolutely terrifying. Think about how many terms and conditions you have agreed to over the years and what might be hidden in them. According to Disney, Piccolo agreed to the terms yet again in 2023 while buying tickets for the theme park.

To be sure, not many go through the long terms and conditions while signing up for a service (more so if it’s been done online) – as Piccolo did.

Piccolo’s lawyers termed Disney’s arguments regarding the 2019 terms being applicable in this case as “preposterous” and “surreal.” They argue, “In effect, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+.”

Meanwhile, Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chamber believes that Disney can put up a stronger case with the terms that Picollo agreed to while buying tickets in 2023 and said, “That may permit Disney to stay the case for arbitration.”

University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew believes that Disney too could have a point as Piccolo did sign the agreement which bars him from suing the company. According to Bartholomew, “The Supreme Court has, time and again, treated these arbitration provisions as binding. It doesn’t matter if it’s in fine, teeny tiny print in the terms of conditions.”

Why Disney Wants an Arbitration Instead of the Lawsuit

It’s not surprising that Disney is pushing for arbitration in this case instead of the lawsuit given the privacy associated with the former. As Jamie Cartwright, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys aptly summed up, “Disney understandably may want to benefit from the privacy and confidentiality that arbitration brings, rather than having a wrongful death suit heard in public with the associated publicity.”

Notably, Disney’s parks are a key driver of its fat profits and the company might not want the case to be publicly debated which could hamper the reputation of the brand.

In the fiscal year 2023, Disney’s Experiences segment’s revenues rose 16% YoY to $32.54 billion and it accounted for 36.6% of Disney’s revenues. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The segment, which includes the theme parks, is a cash cow for Disney and its contribution to the company’s operating income was 69% – or almost twice that of the revenue contribution.

Do Consumers Really Stand a Chance Against Big Corporations?

All said, this case is yet another wake-up call for most of us who blindly sign online agreements without reading the full text. This would especially hold true when one is signing up with a reputable company like Disney and pushing the “I agree” button based on our trust in the brand. But then, even going through the agreement terms might not be of much help either as there is little that common citizens can do apart from of course not signing the agreement altogether.

Bartholomew said that the Supreme Court also tends to side with the companies in such cases on the premise that the user should not sign up for service in the first place if they don’t agree with the terms. She offered a somewhat philosophical remedy and said, “To me, if consumers want to fix this, they need to vote for politicians who are willing to change the power dynamic between corporations and consumers.”

As for Disney, the news comes at possibly the worst time as earlier this month it announced new expansions to its parks at the D 23 Expo. Disney previously committed to invest $60 billion into its parks over the next 10 years after heaps of customer complaints of long wait times and poor experiences. The planned expansions would help improve the appeal of Disney’s theme parks among visitors.