Disney says man can’t sue for wrongful death, cites Disney+, parks tickets arbitration clauses
Walt Disney Co. is asking a Florida state court to toss a wrongful-death lawsuit because the plaintiff agreed to terms and conditions mandating arbitration when he signed up for Disney+ and when he purchased park tickets.
The response comes after plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo sued Disney in February, alleging that his wife died from a severe allergic reaction after dining at a restaurant at Walt Disney World in Orlando.
During a trip to the Disney Springs shopping complex in October 2023, Piccolo and his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, allegedly asked staff multiple times at the Raglan Road restaurant if the food Tangsuan ordered had dairy or nuts, which she was allergic to, according to the lawsuit. The couple were assured it did not, the lawsuit said.
After a year of boardroom drama and box office disappointment, Disney seems to be rounding a corner. Fans at its biennial D23 convention feel the difference.
But less than an hour after their meal, Tangsuan started having difficulty breathing and collapsed; she was taken to a hospital, where she later died, the lawsuit said.
However, Disney said Piccolo agreed to binding arbitration in “all disputes including those involving The Walt Disney Co. or its affiliates†when he signed up for a Disney+ account in November 2019, according to the company’s response filed in May.
The company said he agreed to those terms and conditions again when he purchased Disney World tickets on behalf of himself and his wife. Disney said the binding arbitration clause for the tickets applies to anyone he bought tickets for, according to the response.
In a response to Disney’s filing, Piccolo’s attorneys rebutted the company’s arguments, saying Disney had essentially waived its alleged right to arbitration when it participated in the lawsuit by requesting copies of documents.
Piccolo’s lawyers also said his wife’s estate, which did not exist at the time because she was still alive, was not a signatory to any alleged arbitration agreement, according to the filing, which entered into court record this month.
“A valid agreement to arbitrate does not exist because the arbitration clauses upon which [Walt Disney Parks and Resorts] rely are unconscionable,†the filing said.
Representatives for Piccolo did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
A Disney spokesperson said in a statement that the company was “deeply saddened by the family’s loss.â€
“Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,†the spokesperson said.
Piccolo is seeking at least $50,000 in damages, not including costs and post-judgment interest.
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
