Disney has backed away from its claim that a man cannot sue it over his wife’s death because of the terms he agreed to in a free trial of Disney+.
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of a restaurant after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating a meal at Disney World in Florida.
Disney said the case should instead go to arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Piccolo briefly subscribed to in 2019.
But after a backlash, the court decided the matter could now be heard in court.
“We believe this situation calls for a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have suffered such a devastating loss,” Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro told the BBC in a statement.
“Accordingly, we have decided to waive our right to arbitration and take the matter to court.”
“Attempts by companies like Disney to avoid jury trials should be viewed with skepticism,” Mr. Piccolo’s lawyers said, adding that Mr. Piccolo “will continue to seek justice on behalf of his beloved wife at the trial court level.”
“He also hopes that these recent events have raised awareness among the millions of people of all ages and walks of life who suffer from food allergies,” his lawyers said.
In arbitration, the dispute is monitored by a neutral third party. This is beneficial for those who want to avoid a lengthy trial, but it means that the evidence will not be presented to a jury.
Jimmy Cartwright, a partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechleys, said Disney’s change of heart was driven by the “negative publicity” generated by its initial approach.
“By trying to push the claim into a secret framework on very flimsy grounds, she has only succeeded in creating the publicity and attention she probably wanted to avoid,” he told the BBC.
Mr. Piccolo and his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuwan, had a meal at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub located on the Disney Springs site in Orlando, but operated by an independent company.
He claimed the restaurant did not adequately care about his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite repeatedly telling him about them.
She died in hospital later that day.
According to the legal file, the coroner confirmed her death “as a result of anaphylaxis due to high levels of dairy products and nuts in her system.”
Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 (£38,400), plus other damages for suffering, loss of income, medical and legal costs.
Disney says it has no control over the management and operation of the restaurant.
Piccolo’s lawyers said Disney’s argument that the lawsuit should not be heard in court “borders on the surreal.”
It is not yet known whether Disney would have succeeded in its case if the judge ruled on its arbitration request.
Disney said the legal circumstances surrounding the case were unique.
But legal experts told the BBC they were “pushing the boundaries of contract law”.
“Disney’s argument that accepting its terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with that company is novel and potentially far-reaching,” said Ernest Adwoa, a partner at Stockway Partnership Sollicitors, who was not involved in the proceedings.
Meanwhile, Gabriel Trumbo, a lawyer at Church Court Chambers, said the terms in the Disney+ trial were “a weak argument for Disney to rely on.”
Disney says it is filing a motion to withdraw its arbitration claim.
Additional reporting by Graham Fraser
. “Professional creator. Lifelong thinker. Reader. Beer buff. Troublemaker. Evil problem solver.”