Most people love Walt Disney World, often referring to it as “The Happiest Place On Earth.” For Jeffrey Piccolo, however, the opposite is true: Disney World (specifically, Disney Springs) will always be a place of immense sadness, as it is the place where his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction to the food she was served at a third-party restaurant on Disney property.
Mr. Piccolo has since pursued legal action against the media conglomerate. And though you would think that, given headlines reading “Disney wrongful death lawsuit,” Disney would step up and do the right thing, lawyers representing its parks division instead responded with a cartoonishly evil argument.
The company has since reversed course, likely given the immense backlash seen across social media. Nevertheless, here’s everything you need to know about Piccolo’s wrongful death lawsuit, Disney’s dastardly attempt to escape it, and cases similar to it.
The Disney Wrongful Death Suit
The tragic incident at Disney Springs involved Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts. While dining at the park’s Raglan Road Irish Pub, she inadvertently consumed a dish that triggered a fatal allergic reaction.
Dr. Tangsuan’s allergies were made known. Mr. Piccolo notified the servers of the allergy before ordering the food and even asked a second time whether the items were free from the stated allergens before eating. Despite Piccolo’s diligence, the food items did contain both of them, causing his wife to suffer an allergic reaction and ultimately die from anaphylaxis.
Piccolo and his family filed a lawsuit to pursue justice for such a painful loss, claiming that by allowing the third-party restaurant to operate within its premises, Disney bore some responsibility for the fatal outcome. Piccolo’s legal team further argued that Disney had a duty to ensure the safety of all guests on its property, including those dining at independently owned establishments.
Disney’s initial response to the wrongful allergy death lawsuit was startling. It’s normal for major corporations to try to avoid jury trials, but Disney (more specifically, Walt Disney Parks) did it with a strange and rather terrifying argument.
Firstly, its legal team argued that the company had no direct control over the third-party restaurant. More shockingly, though, it initially asserted that Piccolo’s lawsuit claims could not force a jury trial and instead had to be addressed via arbitration due to the terms of his Disney+ service agreement, of all things, which he signed back in 2019 when setting up a one-month free trial of the streaming service.
Disney’s Slimy Push for Arbitration
In a surprising twist, Disney’s legal team invoked an arbitration clause as part of their defense strategy. During arbitration, disputes are settled outside of court by an impartial third party. These clauses are often included in the fine print of consumer agreements.
Disney attempted to push the notion that Dr. Tangsuan and her family had implicitly agreed to arbitration by using Disney’s services in two key ways. First, as mentioned, Mr. Piccolo signed up for a trial of Disney+ in 2019 and agreed to the terms of conditions at that time, which included an arbitration clause.
Alongside that, the family also purchased tickets to the Epcot Center and agreed to its terms of service in the process. The broad agreement states that guests will arbitrate any disputes, even if they are unrelated to the services themselves. You can view the full terms of service agreement on the Walt Disney Parks website.
What makes matters so messy is that the arbitration clause itself was buried deep within the terms and conditions (T&Cs) of the service contract. It uses so much legal jargon that the average person likely doesn’t fully understand what they are reading, much less what they are agreeing to. The clause essentially means that those who signed it waive their right to a jury trial.
Virtually everyone chimed in to criticize the media giant’s approach, including public and legal experts. And it is far from the first time that Disney has found itself steeped in such intense controversy. The company frequently finds itself in hot water with large segments of its customer base, including LGBT community members and minorities. It has also been involved in labor disputes and faced pushback for major price hikes.
The Dystopian Implications of Terms & Conditions
T&Cs are something we all encounter. You’ve probably signed hundreds of them without so much as a second thought. These agreements are typically designed to protect companies from liability and frivolous lawsuits. Disney (and everyone else) knows that the vast majority of people won’t even glance at terms and conditions, especially for something as trivial as a free trial for a streaming service.
Furthermore, Disney has now clearly demonstrated that companies are willing to abuse the protection provided by T&C agreements.
The idea that a guest could unknowingly waive their right to sue over a wrongful death by simply purchasing a ticket or subscribing to a streaming service is deeply troubling. Critics argued that this case was a prime example of how T&Cs could be weaponized against consumers. Fortunately, the public outcry was swift and intense, prompting Disney to backtrack in hopes of mitigating its reputational damage.
But if Disney had succeeded in its argument, the case could have set a terrifying precedent for consumers, suggesting that companies could shield themselves from liability through a well-written T&C page.
Similar Cases and Legal Precedents
Disney is not the first corporation that has attempted to use its T&C agreements to avoid liability. Several other major corporations are known for their use of sweeping T&Cs to force consumers into arbitration and thus avoid jury trials.
For example, tech companies like Facebook and Google have been known to include broad arbitration clauses in their user agreements with the intent of preventing class-action lawsuits. While courts have upheld these clauses in some instances, federal judges have also demonstrated a willingness to hold these businesses accountable for the harm they cause.
Amazon, in particular, is in the early stages of a class action lawsuit that directly involves its T&C agreement. Plaintiffs have filed a claim against the company for introducing ads to Prime Video, which they allege violates the T&Cs they agreed to when renewing their Prime subscriptions. The plaintiffs also accused the company of violating consumer protection laws and engaging in false advertising.
The T&C component of the Disney wrongful death claim is all but squashed. However, the Amazon case could have major implications for your rights as a consumer and how courts address future T&C-related claims.
The Reversal: Disney Drops Bid for Arbitration
In light of the public outcry, Disney opted for a more sensitive approach to expedite the resolution of the wrongful death lawsuit, ultimately deciding to withdraw their controversial arbitration bid.
Does Disney really believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach? Probably not, but seeing as how the case involves such unique circumstances and how the public response to their request for arbitration was so negative, the brand had little choice but to reverse course. There’s also reason to believe that its arguments would’ve been too weak to stand up against legal scrutiny.
Either way, Disney has essentially conceded that the case should or can be heard in court, a decision that was undoubtedly welcome news for the Tangsuan family as they continue their fight for justice.
However, their struggle is far from over, as Disney can still seek to have the case dismissed on other grounds. It might circle back to the argument that it is not responsible for the policies and procedures of the third-party establishment, even though the restaurant is on Disney property.
Alternatively, Disney’s legal team could seek a settlement, an out-of-court agreement that would take place before a jury trial. The Piccolo/Tangsuan family would have to agree to its terms, but it could lead to an expedited resolution.
Regardless of what path Disney chooses to pursue, it could be months before we see the case resolved. High-profile civil suits like these can drag out for a long time, especially if one party intentionally tries to delay the proceedings.
Jury Trials vs. Arbitration: What’s the Difference?
If you’re not too familiar with the concept of arbitration, you might have wondered why everyone was so concerned about its potential use to settle the case, believing that such an approach could have sped things up and led to a faster resolution.
That’s certainly a possibility, but the more likely scenario is that arbitration would have led to an unjust outcome for the victim’s family. While arbitration is faster, it’s also conducted privately and often limits the plaintiff’s ability to appeal. And beyond that, arbitration hearings tend to favor large corporations.
While an arbitrator should be neutral, the clause in Disney’s T&Cs identifies how arbitrators for its cases are chosen. In some cases, the corporation can pick the arbitrator or, at the very least, be associated with them. And that kind of dynamic can lead to less fair outcomes for plaintiffs.
Jury trials are longer and more expensive, which is why corporations like Disney often avoid them. The public nature of a jury trial would also air out a lot of the company’s dirty laundry. One of the biggest upsides of arbitration for businesses is that it is confidential. If Disney had been successful in forcing Piccolo into arbitration, it could have much more easily buried the controversy.
Disney’s decision to back down from its push for arbitration sets the stage for a fairer and more transparent process. And though there is no guarantee that Mr. Piccolo and Dr. Tangsuan’s family will achieve a favorable outcome, they will have a better opportunity to present their case to a jury of their peers.
Other Major Lawsuits Against Big Businesses
Major lawsuits against large corporations are becoming increasingly prevalent. Class-action claims, which involve hundreds or even thousands of people, are one of the most common types of suits brought against big businesses.
Some examples include the following:
Walmart
Earlier in 2024, Walmart agreed to a $45 million settlement over inaccurate grocery prices. Thousands of customers were being overcharged for bagged citrus and certain meats during a multi-year period. The settlement sought to reimburse customers for their losses.
Verizon
Verizon reached a $100 million settlement over unfair administrative charges that it billed to tens of thousands of customers. Eligible customers could file a claim for compensation and receive money to offset the overcharges they experienced.
NFL Sunday Ticket
The $4.7 billion NFL Sunday Ticket settlement would, in fact, be one of the biggest ever. However, the NFL has since had the ruling overturned. Nevertheless, the case serves as a warning for major corporations: Consumers will hold them accountable for unscrupulous business practices.
Costco
The Costco baby wipes class action lawsuit is one of the latest cases against a big organization. Plaintiffs claim that they found harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes. The case is ongoing, but it could lead to a huge settlement for affected customers.
Why the Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit Matters for Everyone
The wrongful death lawsuit against Disney’s theme park division brings critical issues of consumer rights and corporate responsibility to light. And even though the company reversed course, its initial move to force arbitration based on T&Cs should remind you to carefully read any agreement before you sign up for a service or make a purchase.