A tragic incident has highlighted the importance of reading the fine print—especially when it comes to Disney.
A man’s world turned upside down after his spouse tragically passed away from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant.
The story has shocked many, the company, known for being everyone’s friend, is now seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over the woman’s death. The reason? The plaintiff subscribed to Disney+ years earlier, and the company argues that the terms of service included an arbitration clause covering all disputes with them
Jeffrey Piccolo and Kanokporn Tangsuan vs Disney
Jeffrey Piccolo, the plaintiff, claims that his spouse, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant in October 2023.
Despite informing the staff about her allergies and receiving assurance that the food was allergen-free, she tragically died from “anaphylaxis due to high levels of dairy and nuts.”
The lawsuit demands $50,000 in compensation plus damages for pain and suffering, lost income, and medical and funeral expenses.
In response, the mega-company is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit by citing the arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms and conditions.
Read also: Monkeypox: World Health Organization Declares Mpox a Global Health Emergency
The company argues that Piccolo agreed to arbitrate all legal disputes, including those unrelated to the streaming service, when he subscribed in 2019.
If you’re wondering, an arbitration clause is a contractual provision where both parties agree to resolve disputes outside of court, through arbitration. This process involves an impartial arbitrator or panel making a binding decision on the matter.
Piccolo’s lawyers have called the multi-industry company’s defense absurd, arguing that a subscription should have no bearing on a lawsuit related to an incident at the mall and entertainment complex.
The case continues to draw attention as it unfolds.
This article was written originally in Spanish by Alan Cruz in Cultura Colectiva.
