Dismissal of lawsuit over Disney+ subscription: Disney withdraws application

Disney does not want to take the case of a woman who died in a restaurant to arbitration after all – and argues with humanity.

Save to Pocket listen Print view
Disney in New York

The motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the death of a 42-year-old woman due to a streaming subscription had caused a stir.

(Image: Alexandre Tziripouloff/Shutterstock.com)

3 min. read

Disney is backing down in the legal dispute over an allergy-related death in one of its restaurants: instead of having the case settled by an arbitration board, the company now wants to have the lawsuit filed by the widower of the deceased settled in the regular court in Florida. Disney's lawyers had previously applied for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that the man had taken out a trial subscription to Disney+ in the past and agreed to settle all disputes out of court. The motion made international headlines.

The plaintiff's wife died of anaphylactic shock after eating in a restaurant at a Disney theme park. The food was contaminated with food to which she was allergic. She had repeatedly informed the waiters of her allergies. The 42-year-old died and her husband took her to court.

Disney recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in order to prevent this from happening. In its argument, the entertainment giant referred to a clause in the general terms and conditions of the Disney+ streaming service, which the plaintiff had accepted in 2019 when signing up for a trial subscription: disputes would have to go to arbitration - in all matters concerning the Disney Group and its subsidiaries. There was a similar clause in the terms and conditions when the plaintiff purchased the tickets for the park.

After numerous media picked up on the case, Disney is now changing its strategy. The court hearing scheduled for October has been canceled. Earlier this week, Josh D'Amaro, Chairman of Disney Experiences, told several media outlets that the company was waiving its right to arbitration. "At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations," D'Amaro is quoted as saying. "Given such unique circumstances as this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to finding a solution for the family that has suffered such a painful loss."

The plaintiff's lawyer had described Disney's approach as absurd, outrageous and unfair. In an initial response to the lawsuit in May, Disney had not yet addressed the arbitration proceedings. Instead, the company argued that it was not the owner of the pub, but only the landlord.

The company's withdrawal is unusual, said Joseph Sellers, a lawyer who regularly files large class action lawsuits, to the news agency Reuters. The decision indicates that Disney's lawyers did not see the approach as promising. The voluntary withdrawal is less embarrassing than the probable defeat in court.

(are)

Don't miss any news – follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn or Mastodon.

This article was originally published in German. It was translated with technical assistance and editorially reviewed before publication.