Disney has chosen to withdraw its attempt to use a Disney+ contract clause to prevent a wrongful death lawsuit from going to court.
The case revolves around the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who succumbed to a severe allergic reaction at Disney World.
The lawsuit, initiated by Jeffrey Piccolo, seeks justice for 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.
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.
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.
Disney has maintained that it had no control over the management or operation of the restaurant involved.
Disney has confirmed that it is in the process of formally submitting its withdrawal of the arbitration request to the court.
This decision might influence other corporations to reconsider their approach to arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.
Disney’s decision to withdraw its bid for arbitration highlights the complexity of balancing legal strategy and public opinion.
This development marks a significant shift in the approach to consumer contract arbitration clauses.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have long-lasting implications for both Disney and the wider industry.
