If you've ever wondered why lawyers, particularly those representing massive corporations are reviled by so many people, this case may prove to be a prime piece of evidence. In October of last year, Kanokporn Tangsuan and her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, along with his mother, visited Raglan Road Irish Pub for dinner in Disney Springs, part of the Walt Disney World resort in Florida. Unfortunately, Ms. Tangsuan suffered from severe food allergies. She suffered a reaction from her meal and tragically died before medical help could be rendered. Piccolo subsequently brought a $50,000 wrongful death lawsuit against Disney as a result. But Disney's attorneys are now in court arguing that the suit must be dismissed and the case sent to private arbitration, in part because Piccolo once signed up for a Disney+ account and because he ordered tickets to Epcott Center on their website. The terms of service prevent people from bringing lawsuits and give the company the right to handle all matters through arbitration. The "in part" aspect of the complaint will become important in a moment, but on its face, the idea that such a lawsuit could simply be dismissed out of hand because of the terms of service agreement attached to a streaming platform is simply absurd, which is precisely the argument that Piccolo's attorney is making. (CNN)

A man suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for the wrongful death of his wife is facing a new legal hurdle: Disney is trying to get it thrown out of court and sent to arbitration — because he signed up for Disney+ years earlier.

Court documents show that the company is trying to get the $50,000 lawsuit tossed because the plaintiff, Jeffrey Piccolo, signed up for a one-month trial of the streaming service Disney+ in 2019, which requires trial users to arbitrate all disputes with the company.

Company lawyers also claim that because Piccolo used the Walt Disney Parks’ website to buy Epcot Center tickets, Disney is shielded from a lawsuit from the estate of Piccolo’s deceased wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died of a reaction to severe food allergies.

Piccolo’s lawyer Brian Denney called Disney’s argument “preposterous” and said the idea that signing up for a Disney+ trial account would bar a customer’s right to a jury trial is "so outrageously unreasonable" that it should "shock the judicial conscience.” To that limited extent, I agree. The TOS that Piccolo agreed to applies to the streaming service. If there were issues with that service, such as a lack of availability or deleted content, he might be forced to seek arbitration under those terms. But none of this should apply to Disney's other physical locations or offerings. 

With that said, my agreement with the TOS complaint doesn't mean that I believe Piccolo's case should automatically move forward and be found in his favor. Disney's attorneys (and simple common sense) make some other, stronger arguments in their favor. First of all, while it's a tragedy that Ms. Tangsuan died, people with severe food allergies have to be very careful in terms of where and what they eat. That's just a reality that such patients are faced with. If the restaurant didn't clearly mark the dish in terms of its ingredients or failed to inform Tangsuan (assuming she asked), they might be responsible to some degree. But otherwise, this is probably a case of caveat emptor. 

Returning to the legal side of the question, Disney is pointing out that the Raglan Road Irish Pub is located on part of their property at the Walt Disney World Resort, but they do not own the restaurant. It is owned and operated by a private franchisee who pays Disney to lease the space out to them. The Mouse does not set the restaurant's policy or manage its operations. As such, Piccolo should be suing the franchisee (which he is also doing) but not trying to drag Disney into the suit.

These are both much better arguments than trying to point to the Disney+ Terms of Service agreement. Almost nobody reads those agreements when signing up for a free trial account. And among the few who do, most probably don't understand all of the legalese embedded in them. Disney should drop that part of the argument because it only makes them look much worse in the eyes of the public.