In February, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney seeking $50,000 in damages. He and his wife of five years, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, had been vacationing at Disney World in October 2023 when Dr. Tangsuan tragically died of anaphylaxis after eating at a restaurant at Disney Springs. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Tangsuan had clearly outlined her severe nut and dairy allergies and was assured by the wait staff that her meal would not be contaminated. Now Disney has fired back with a legal argument that could only be imagineered by the House of Mouse: Disney is actually claiming that they are absolved of all liability because Jeffrey Piccolo agreed to the Disney+ terms of service, and used his Disney+ account to purchase the tickets for last year’s fatal trip. Apparently, buried within the terms we all click to agree to without reading (what, that’s only me?), is a clause stating that “all disputes with The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates be settled out of court via arbitration.” You’re a cunning fox, Mr. Mouse.
As a widower takes Disney to court over his wife’s death at Walt Disney World and Resorts, the company is using its Disney+ streaming terms to attempt blocking the lawsuit.
In a recent filing, Disney’s attorneys requested Jeffrey Piccolo’s $50,000 case be dismissed and settled out of court after claiming his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died of an allergic reaction at the Florida resort’s Raglan Road Irish Pub in October 2023.
They argued that by signing up for a free 30-day trial of Disney+ in 2019, and again when purchasing the theme park tickets in 2023 through his Disney+ account, Piccolo agreed to the streamer’s terms of service, which includes that “all disputes” with “The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates” be settled out of court via arbitration.
“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief.” Disney’s attorneys said in a statement shared by The Guardian. “Given that his restaurant is neither owner 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.”
Piccolo’s attorneys said that argument “bordered on the surreal” in a response, adding, “The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as tot shock the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement.
“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 do with Disney+.”
While I acknowledge that it’s legally on us as consumers to read what we’re agreeing to when we sign terms of service, it’s pretty darn sinister of Disney to slip in a clause that, “Oh, by the way, you can never hold us accountable for anything. Now be our guest!” Just for some perspective, even Ursula the Sea Witch made sure Ariel was clearly aware of the fact that she had to sign away her voice as part of their deal! So good work, Disney, you’ve out-villained your own villains. But even putting all that aside, it seems to me there are holes in this counter-move by Disney. Why rebut with a reference to the terms for their streaming subscription, if they’re also harping on the fact that the restaurant is independently-owned, hmm? It rather seems they’re showing their white-gloved hand there. And for anyone planning their Disney World trip online, they could easily get confused as to Raglan Road Irish Pub’s ownership.
I can’t tell how this will shake out, as Disney’s legal operations in Florida can be… let’s say mysterious. But it is wrongful that Dr. Tangsuan, a medical professional, died from anaphylaxis at age 42 after double and triple-checking ingredients with the restaurant, and even self-administering an Epi-pen when her symptoms flared up.
Photos via Instagram and credit: David Guerrero on Pexels
If this isn’t an example of an unconscionable term in a contract, then I don’t know what is. It’s also scary that an epi didn’t save her! So tragic!
This!! This story is heartbreaking 💔. RIP to the young doctor who lost her life, and I hope her loved ones win big against Disney! It won’t bring her back, but still…
Why should they win big against Disney? Disney doesn’t own or operate the restaurant.
And given that they don’t, geez Disney I know you love your “everything but the kitchen sink” strategies but…this is dystopian level dark!! However, the outcome will be interesting, they are not absolved of liability if the clause is upheld. It will mean though that if you have any beef with Disney and have ever subscribed, it is arbitration only. Fascinating, and crazy scary.
There’s also a note on the menu that while they will do their best on allergies, they cannot guarantee against contamination. That may be the reason they are also trying the Disney suing route. The restaurant may be able to limit damages.
None of this brings this woman back though, may she rest in peace. Terribly sad.
It’s worth noting (because I did not know this until, like, five years after my daughter’s milk allergy diagnosis) that epinephrine doesn’t actually stop the allergic reaction, it just lessens the symptoms (and hopefully keeps you from dying before you can get to medication that will actually stop it). It basically buys you time. When the epinephrine wears off, the reaction will start again unless treated. It’s why follow up care is so important.
This is a great point if people don’t know it, especially since it’s often someone near the person with allergies who will administer the EpiPen, depending on how bad the reaction is.
When we got trained in how to use my daughter’s Epi-Pen (and in First Aid training) they stressed that it just buys you like, 15 minutes to get to the ER for actual treatment. (If necessary, you can administer a second one after 15 mins, I think – double check that first!)
I’m not super familiar with this case, but I’d read in an article she did go straight to the hospital afterwards, which is where, tragically, she passed away.
The chilling thing to me is that they are saying that the free one-month trial of Disney+ they did years ago – and never extended the contract beyond the trial period – is part of what makes them beholden to arbitration.
Like, they have clauses in their streaming trial contract to which customers are beholden in perpetuity?! Even after the rest of the contract has ended?! (i.e. Disney is no longer providing streaming services, nor charging for them, but you’re still beholden to the other clauses?!)
That seems messed up to me – do any lawyers on here know whether that’s pretty standard?
Very tragic. Plus, only $50k in damages? She was a young doctor, I would think the calculation of her life ‘value’ would pencil out to more than $50k.
50 thousand dollars in damages seems 1. Reasonable, and 2. Like something Disney can easily afford, no? Instead they’re going after a grieving widower who lost his wife by saying he didn’t read the fine print?!?! And Disney is getting a ton of negative publicity from this. This is beyond sick, and I truly hope it costs Disney a fortune. My heartfelt condolences to the family of Dr Tangsuan. I hope they know how much love, support and sympathy they have and I hope that Dr Tangsuan’s death leads to lasting changes in Disney’s restaurants! And this IS a Disney restaurant (official or not) considering its location.
It’s $50,000 for damages but I think jury can also award for loss of companionship, and other monetary amounts that will add up to millions.
Disney knows they will do better in arbitration over a jury.
Most companies will do better in arbitration which is why so many big companies have arbitration clauses like this. There is a focus on the disney plus aspect of this but I imagine if you buy your tickets directly through Disney* you are also subject to a similar arbitration clause.
It’s just another way the big corporations protect themselves. your credit cards, cell phone bills, amusement park visits (I’m sure Universal has a similar clause when purchasing tickets), hotel stays, I wouldn’t be surprised if many stadiums include an arbitration clause etc – a TON are protecting themselves with similar clauses these days. My husband is a personal injury attorney and some potential clients call him with a claim and he often can’t take it because his firm can’t go up against the Disneys of the world. It completely sucks for the average injured individual but these wheels have been in motion for years now.
*I think people are focusing on the Disney plus part of this because it seems particularly egregious, but I think it would be the same if they had gone through a MyDisney account. We were going to go to Disney this summer and there were additional promos available if I booked using my Disney plus account and not the My Disney account, but I imagine the language is the same.
I think Disney wants to be positive that this case doesn’t in any way set precedents for any future cases. I’d also guess that there are probably a lot of things that most of us would assume are owned by Disney because they are part of the “Disney” experience, that will turn out to be “independent “ businesses or “independent “ contractors, thus limiting liability for Disney.
Arbitration is increasingly being written into the fine print of contractual agreements, and businesses—including their subsidiaries— are increasingly being absorbed into mega-conglomerates. The result of this, including invisible and opt-out internet “contracts” is massive power for businesses at the expense of consumers.
Dr. Tangsuan’s death was a preventable tragedy. Disney’s treatment of her surviving husband is a carefully crafted plan.
I’m a reader. As a young teen, I once stepped out of the line for an amusement park ride because while I was waiting in line, I got bored, read the back of my ticket, and was more frightened by what I read than I was about the ride. I don’t remember what it said exactly, but the language included stuff about “death and dismemberment “ that were risks that the rider was knowingly assuming.
How do the lawyers who concocted this cruel f*ckery sleep at night?
Fine. Probably very comfortably, on very expensive, high thread count sheets.
You can thank the conservatives on SCOTUS for this. They’ve steadily been chipping away at consumer (and employee) protections on all the cases regarding arbitration over the years
Unfortunately, such provisions in contracts are completely legal, and the Supreme Court of the United States and the different individual states have repeatedly upheld them. Every few years, a case like this hits the news and everyone is shocked that a contract can slip in language giving up rights to sue, but Congress/legislatures don’t do anything to change the law because of the lobbying money from big corporations like Disney that don’t want juries to rule on these cases.
Yup. Everyone should watch the documentary “Hot Coffee”.
I don’t doubt whichever lawyer found this deep in a pile of documents. Got a slap on the back and promotion. For screwing this family over. I hope they are not forced into arbitration over a Disney + free trial download.
The Disney lawyer didn’t find it deep down in a pile of documents like it was some secret, lol, its probably plastered in a banner in the lunchroom – ARBITRATION CLAUSE!!!!!
A subscription for a streaming service used to block a legitimate wrongful death suit at a restaurant? That is lower than low. If Disney keeps pushing this, I will be boycotting everything Disney. Everything!
i’m assuming they bought their tickets through their disney plus account for promotional purpsoes, so that’s the language that applies. I said above that my guess is the language (and defense) would be the same had they booked through My Disney or called a TA etc.
No, it’s worse than that. It seemed the husband downloaded Disney + on a gaming console years ago. With a free trial. Which brought the disclaimer. And some young attorney dug deep to find it. Which is what they are using against him. I’m sure the lawyer thinks he just ate it for the client and his law firm. But really, it is despicable. to do this.
@Flamingo, nope, according to the article, that’s incorrect.
“and again when purchasing the theme park tickets in 2023 through his Disney+ account.”
Its unclear whether he signed up for a free trial again, but he purchased the theme park tickets through his Disney+ account. Which again, I did this year (we ended up changing the trip) because of the promotions associated with that.
So it seems they are not just using the fact that he has a Disney+ account against him, but that he purchased the tickets through them.
And again – because people seem confused on this issue – like said elsewhere, this doesn’t mean there won’t be a payout, just that the case itself cannot go through the courts.
Arbitration clauses are awful, they really are, especially because in many cases they preclude class actions. But I am not surprised at all that Disney has one.
@Bumblebee, please keep in mind that it’s not just Disney that does this. This case might hit harder because many of us associate Disney with the “magic” of innocence and childhood, but many interconnected conglomerates do things like this. We probably don’t hear more about these types of cases because they are settled privately through arbitration.
I’m concerned that because most businesses have an internet presence, opt-out internet “contracts” will increasingly impact consumer rights in brick-and-mortar businesses including associated businesses that reasonable consumers would have no idea are interconnected.
Not defending Disney here, but just wanted to point out that the terms in that contract ARE NOT absolving them of liability. The contract is just saying that any dispute needs to be handled privately in arbitration as opposed to a public trial. It’s still shitty of them, and it’s a really flimsy argument to say that there’s a link between your streaming contract and a wrongful death lawsuit, but it’s NOT saying that Disney is absolved of liability.
Saying “Disney is actually claiming that they are absolved of all liability” is just not actually what the contract says.
This breaks my heart and astounds me that The Mouse wants to pull such a villain move! There is nothing scarier than watching your partner suffer with very little you can do about it. I know a little something about that due to having a fiance with epilepsy. The best you can do is clear objects that could hurt them and roll them in their side if you can to help keep airways clear, ride it out, then help them while they recover. We are lucky because his are almost fully controlled by meds, but we have to make sure we monitor heat and stress, avoid alcohol, and certain OTC meds, like Benadryl,which can easily induce a seizure. As careful as we are, I almost lost him because his dosage was reduced due to pharmacy mistake and he inhaled some of his stomach contents while having the worst seizure I’ve seen, but we got him to the ER in time. I have never felt more helpless and hopeless than that first few minutes in the ER! I feel so horrible for this widower, as I was almost in that position. I hope Disney has severe consequences for this evil, underhanded bullshit! I’m *far* from a Disney adult, but doing this to a man who watched his wife die in his arms despite everything they did and couldn’t even be saved by an Epi pen is diabolical! 😭😭😭
Jesus, just pay it.
I am happy the Disney parks attendance has been down. With something like this and what they are doing to people applying for DAS. Is just so wrong and pure corporate greed. Some disabilities are invisible. No one is cutting the line with DAS. But allegedly, some Disney influencers were sharing DAS as a hack. Which brought the changes. And many, many people are being denied. Then Disney puts them into a bind. Because you have to buy the park tickets first and then apply within a certain time. So, if you are denied you can’t get a refund and are stuck with tickets. Some families can’t use. It seems Corporate Disney wants to push people to buy lightning lanes and fast pass services instead. Which, also many families can’t afford to do. And Disney was one of the more accommodating parks with children and adults with Autism.
Well, that was fast. Disney getting rid of any good will generated by the Desantos mess as quickly as possible.
Condolences to her family. Hope they win.
Just wanted to update that Disney did the right thing and waived arbitration rights. It will proceed to trial. Lord Disney just settle and pay the family. The family did everything they were supposed to do to ask about the food she was allergic to not be in her meal, the server promised it wasn’t and it was. Case closed.