Even Disney has realized that trying to use the Disney+ terms of service to wriggle out of a wrongful death lawsuit was a terrible idea
In a turn-up for the corporate books, even the infamously cut-throat Disney corporation has realised that it was just being way too shitty to a man suing it over the death of his wife at Disney World. Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan died in 2023 after a severe allergic reaction to food served at a restaurant in Disney World, Florida, despite warning the staff multiple times about her allergies. Her husband Jeffrey Piccolo launched a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the restaurant owners later in 2023.
It's here that Disney's lawyers step in, with one of the most truly amoral legal moves you'll ever see. Piccolo's suit includes reference to language used on the Disney website about the restaurant in question. Disney argued to the court that Piccolo could not sue the company over language on the website because, in 2019, he had signed up for a free trial of Disney+, as part of which he had agreed to the terms and conditions.
These terms and conditions, said Disney, included a clause saying users agree to settle any disputes with the company over any of its services via arbitration (a non-public process overseen by a neutral third party). From Disney's court filing: "The arbitration provision covers 'all disputes' including 'disputes involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates'".
To add insult to grievous injury, Disney's lawyers further argued that Piccolo had agreed to these terms again: when he bought the tickets through My Disney Experience for the couple's ill-fated trip to Disney World. Just as the finishing touch, Disney argued he had also agreed to these terms on behalf of his wife, whom he listed as a guest.
To be clear, this argument has not been ruled on by the court, and there's every chance that a sane judge would have turned around and told Disney exactly where it could stick the Disney+ terms and conditions. Piccolo's lawyers said the claim "borders on the surreal."
Last week Disney's argument became public and was widely covered across media, with the reaction almost unanimously being one of revulsion. Following the backlash, Disney has now announced it will be withdrawing its demand for arbitration.
"We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," said Disney's Josh D'Amaro in a statement to the BBC. "As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court."
You probably don't need a high-priced lawyer to tell you this, but Jamie Cartwright told the Beeb he reckons the "adverse publicity" may well have sparked the change in heart. "In attempting to push the claim into a confidential setting on what were very tenuous grounds, it succeeded only in creating the very publicity and attention it likely wanted to avoid," adds Cartwright.
To zoom out for a moment, while Disney's behaviour here has been the absolute pits, it's an argument that courts have been ruling on for years in various guises. When you get down to it, how many people actually read the terms and conditions of anything before agreeing to them? Is there a human being alive who reads all 34 pages of an Activision EULA before playing the new Call of Duty?
But Disney's approach was taking that even further. It was trying to say that, because Piccolo had previously signed up for a completely unrelated Disney product, the terms and conditions associated with that product then applied to his interactions with Disney across all of its services. A company trying to wriggle out of a wrongful death lawsuit with this rationale is just breath-taking, and almost makes you wish it had gone in front of a judge.
Piccolo is suing Disney for a sum in excess of $50,000, as well as damages for suffering, loss of income, and medical and legal costs. Disney argues that, as the restaurant is operated independently, it bears no responsibility. The case will now be heard in court at an unknown date.