After death: Disney seeks dismissal of lawsuit over Disney+ subscription
Disney argues that a widower's lawsuit against the company because of the widower's membership must be decided by arbitration.
(Image: AFM Visuals/Shutterstock.com)
- Nico Jurran
Does membership of the Disney+ video streaming service prevent surviving relatives from going to court in the event of a death for which Disney is responsible? This is the view of the company's lawyers in connection with a lawsuit filed on February 22 in the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida (case number 024-CA-001616-O available here)
In this lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo is attempting to hold Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and the company operating the "Raglan Road" restaurant liable for the death of his wife Konokporn Tangsuan. According to the plaintiff, she was served food containing nuts and milk, to which Tangsuan was highly allergic, at Raglan Road on October 5 of last year despite repeated explicit warnings. Shortly after eating her dinner, she suffered a severe acute allergic reaction and died. The coroner's inquest confirmed that the cause of death was anaphylaxis due to an increased level of dairy products and nuts in her body.
According to the plaintiff, Piccolo and his wife had visited "Raglan Road" because both Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and the restaurant operator had advertised to the public that people with food allergies had top priority at the restaurant and that a staff trained in special diets could be consulted before ordering food.
No lawsuit possible because of subscription?
As has now become known, the Disney Group's lawyers then filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit with the district court – with a thoroughly original justification: The plaintiff had taken out a trial subscription for Disney's video streaming service "Disney+" on November 29, 2019, and had nodded off the service's General Terms of Use. And a document had been linked in these terms and conditions of use that prevented Piccolo from taking legal action in the present case. Instead, he had to take his case to an arbitration tribunal. Critics see this as an attempt by Disney to bring the case before an institution that is more sympathetic to the company than a court.
Disney's lawyers argue that, according to the wording at the time, the agreement applies to "all disputes, actions or other controversies between you and us relating to the Disney+ Service, the ESPN+ Service or this Agreement, whether based on past, present or future events, whether in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation or any other legal or equitable basis".
The corporate lawyers also want to draw a similar conclusion from the fact that the plaintiff had purchased tickets for Disney's Epcot amusement park in 2023 via a Disney website "My Disney" in the past. The website's terms of use also contained similar wording in this case.
Piccolo's attorneys stated in their response that the assumption that their client, in setting up his Disney+ account on behalf of his wife or her estate, had agreed to arbitrate injuries suffered by his wife at a restaurant on the corporation's property bordered on the absurd. The district court has now scheduled a hearing for October 2.
(nij)
