Disney has backed down from its attempt to move a wrongful death lawsuit to arbitration, following a public backlash.
The lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, seeks justice for the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died in 2023 after suffering a severe allergic reaction at Disney World in Florida.
Initially, Disney argued that the case should be resolved through arbitration due to a clause in the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Mr Piccolo had signed up for during a free trial in 2019. Arbitration, often favoured for its confidentiality and speed, would have kept the matter out of a public courtroom.
However, after facing significant public criticism, Disney decided to allow the lawsuit to proceed in court. Josh D’Amaro, Disney’s chairman, said in a statement to Business Matters, “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
Legal experts had questioned Disney’s original stance, with some suggesting that the company was “pushing the envelope of contract law” by attempting to apply the Disney+ terms to an unrelated incident. Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, noted that Disney’s initial approach likely generated the very public scrutiny it sought to avoid.
The lawsuit stems from an incident at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub located at Disney Springs in Orlando, but operated by an independent company. Mr Piccolo alleges that the restaurant failed to properly accommodate his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite being informed of them multiple times. Dr. Tangsuan later died in hospital, with a medical examiner confirming that her death was due to anaphylaxis caused by elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for over $50,000 (£38,400), in addition to other damages related to suffering, loss of income, and medical and legal costs. Disney has maintained that it had no control over the management or operation of the restaurant involved.
Legal analysts believe that Disney’s decision to withdraw its arbitration claim is likely influenced by the adverse publicity generated by its initial argument. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, pointed out that Disney’s novel approach in attempting to extend its Disney+ terms to this case was “potentially far-reaching” but ultimately a “weak argument.”
Disney has confirmed that it is in the process of formally submitting its withdrawal of the arbitration request to the court.
