Disney has dropped their controversial legal claim that the Disney+ terms and conditions a widower agreed to when signing up to their online streaming service protect it from a wrongful death lawsuit he brought over his wife’s death.

Background

Kanokporn Tangsuan visited the Disney Springs resort and had dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo. Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts and the couple chose this restaurant because an online Disney map suggested that the restaurant accommodated people with allergies. They made sure to check with the restaurant and were repeatedly assured that her food was allergen-free. Shortly after Tangsuan died of ‘anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system’.

In February, Piccolo sued the restaurant and Disney – Disney stated that Piccolo’s claims against Disney are ‘based entirely on Great Irish Pub’s alleged misconduct’.

Disney’s terms of service

Piccolo bought tickets to the park using a Disney account he had created a few years earlier, which he initially used to get a free trial to the Disney Plus streaming service. When he created this account on his PlayStation, he clicked ‘Agree and Continue’ to the terms and conditions which stated the following:

“ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN YOU AND US, EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS, IS SUBJECT TO A CLASS-ACTION WAIVER AND MUST BE RESOLVED BY INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION.”

Disney had attempted to use this arbitration clause to prevent the claim from going to court.

Piccolo’s lawyers argued that there is no way he could have known when he agreed to the terms of service that he was signing away the rights to sue in the unthinkable event that his wife would die at a Disney-associated property. They stated that the notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney Plus free trial account would forever bar their right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is outrageously unreasonable and unfair.

Disney has since faced backlash among the public and legal community and has backpedalled and released a statement that it has waived its right to arbitration and will have the matter proceed in court.

Issues brought to light

Arbitration is more attractive to a large corporation such as Disney because it has parties settle their disputes outside of the public eye – but their attempt in this case has backfired.

Nevertheless, this case has underlined a universal issue that very few people understand the terms and conditions they agree to on a day-to-day basis and begs the question as to whether we are inadvertently signing away our legal protections in exchange for digital conveniences.

This cross-sector influence raises many questions about consumer rights and corporate responsibility. This Disney case is not an isolated incident and as tech companies have grown, there have been more instances where agreements in one sector affect rights in another. Microsoft is another clear example of this, with influence over multiple sectors including AI development, office software and video gaming.

Do the terms we agree on for one service always define all other service contracts, and if so, is this fair?

In any case, it’s always a good idea to ensure to ‘read before you click’ and to carefully consider which services are necessary. It’s also important to consider, when signing up for a new service, whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks to privacy and legal rights.

Need help with understanding or drafting Terms and Conditions? Contact our Commercial Team for expert advice on protecting your rights.