Amelia Chen
The mouse’s treachery was once again exposed in a wrongful death lawsuit filed on February 22, 2024, against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (“WDPR”).[1] On October 5, 2023, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo, and her mother had dinner at Ragland Road, a restaurant at Walt Disney World. Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts, which factored into their choice to have dinner at Ragland Road, an establishment that advertised that accommodating those with allergies was a “top priority” and that “patrons/guests could consult with a chef and/or special diets trained Cast Member before placing a food order.”[2] Unfortunately, even after repeated conversations with their waiter and reassurance that items without allergen-free flags in them were also allergen free, Tangsuan passed away due to anaphylaxis 45 minutes after consuming her dinner. Her cause of death was attributed to “elevated levels of dairy and nut” in her system.[3]
In WDPR’s initial response to the Florida-filed lawsuit on May 15, 2024, WDPR’s lawyers submitted sixteen affirmative defenses, including that the “[p]laintiff’s claims are subject in whole or in part to binding arbitration to the extent the alleged representations were made online through www.disneyworld.disney.go.com and therefore governed by the Terms of Use.”[4] On May 31, 2024, WDPR filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, arguing that Piccolo had agreed to arbitrate any dispute against WDPR via signing up for a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, and had again agreed to arbitration through the Disney Terms of Use by using the WDPR website to buy tickets to Epcot (these tickets were never used).[5] According to WDPR, in filing this lawsuit “Piccolo ignore[d] that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates’ arising ‘in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis.’” WDPR designates this section of the Disney Terms of Use as “broad language [that] covers Piccolo’s claims against WDPR.”[6]
Piccolo’s lawyers responded, in their August 2, 2024 filing, by stating that WDPR’s reasoning was “preposterous,” bordered on the “surreal” and “absurd,” and “fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons.”[7] They argued that “[t]here is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, the only Agreement Mr. Piccolo allegedly assented to in creating his Disney+ account, which would support the notion that he was agreeing on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort from which she died” and that this was a bid by WDPR to “deprive the Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan of its right to a jury trial.”[8] Piccolo’s team has argued that not only did WDPR not raise its alleged right to arbitration early enough in the trial, Piccolo brought this case on behalf of his deceased wife’s estate, which could not have assented to the forced arbitration clause in the Disney Terms of Use as it did not exist at the time of alleged agreement.[9]
The public backlash was astounding, and on August 20, 2024, WDPR withdrew its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Case.[10] The case was scheduled to appear in Florida Court on October 2, 2024.
This case is a symptom of a broader issue in U.S. consumer rights; it is the result of the rise of forced arbitration, a practice that many U.S. companies engage in to avoid accountability. The agreement to arbitrate all disputes—waiving the right to a jury trial—is hidden away in lengthy terms and conditions statements, which consumers click “agree” to largely without reading in order to use a service or product.[11] According to a 2023 study by the National Consumer Law Center, “[m]ore than 99% of consumers who use popular products and services such as Netflix, Cash App, or Hulu, had no idea they are subject to forced arbitration.”[12] In fact, “[f]ewer than 1% of consumers correctly understood that forced arbitration robs them of their fundamental and constitutional right, protected by the Seventh Amendment, to seek accountability through public courts.”[13] Perhaps the Florida courts will help clarify the boundaries of this practice, or perhaps no one who ever uses a Disney service will ever be able to sue for wrongful death again.
[1] Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Case at 2, Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida, No. 2024-CA-001 61 6-0 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2024).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses at 3, Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida, No. 2024-CA-001 61 6-0 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2024).
[5] Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.’s Motion To Compel Arbitration and Stay Case at 3, Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida, No. 2024-CA-001 61 6-0 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2024).
[6] Id. at 2.
[7] Supra note 1, at 3–4, 8.
[8] Supra note 1 at 8–9.
[9] Supra note 1 at 4, 14.
[10] Notice of Withdrawing Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Case at 1, Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida, No. 2024-CA-001 61 6-0 (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Feb. 22, 2024).
[11] Study: 99% of Consumers Unaware they are Subject to Forced Arbitration, National Consumer Law Center (Jul. 27, 2023), https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-subject-to-forced-arbitration/ [https://perma.cc/BVM2-NVLL] [https://web.archive.org/web/20241001183846/https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-subject-to-forced-arbitration/].
[12] Id.
[13] Id.