Disney’s Controversial Legal Defense: Disney+ Terms of Service in a Wrongful Death Lawsuit

In a surprising and contentious legal maneuver, Disney has invoked its Disney+ terms of service to argue that a wrongful death lawsuit should be settled outside of court. The case centers around Jeffrey Piccolo, who is suing Disney after his wife tragically died in 2023 due to a severe allergic reaction following a meal at a restaurant within Walt Disney World. Disney’s unusual defense claims that Piccolo’s acceptance of Disney+ terms of service in 2019 should preclude him from pursuing legal action in this case.

The Case Background

Jeffrey Piccolo’s wrongful death lawsuit alleges that his wife’s death was caused by negligence at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant, a dining establishment at Disney Springs within the Disney World complex. According to Piccolo, his wife suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at the restaurant, which he argues was a result of poor food handling or miscommunication about allergens.

In response, Disney has argued that Piccolo’s agreement to Disney+ terms of service—which include a clause mandating arbitration for disputes—should extend to all interactions with the company, including those involving its theme parks. Disney contends that the terms agreed upon during a Disney+ free trial in 2019 should be applied to this case, effectively seeking to bypass a public court trial and push the dispute into arbitration.

The Legal Controversy

The argument hinges on the assertion that a contractual agreement for one Disney product (Disney+) should cover all dealings with the company, including those unrelated to the streaming service. Critics argue that this interpretation stretches the application of contract law beyond its reasonable limits.

Don Lichterman, is astounded by Disney’s attempt to use Disney+ terms in a context unrelated to its streaming service. “I do not know what one has to do with the other, term-wise,” Lichterman remarks. “It is astounding to me that these lawyers are using a Disney+ user agreement for something as unrelated as a restaurant at a theme park. It’s another case of allowing the wolves to guard the henhouse. Terms should relate to the precise service you’re signing up for, not transfer to other brands or completely unrelated areas.”

Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, underscores the novelty and potential implications of Disney’s argument. “Disney is pushing the envelope of contract law,” Aduwa says. “The courts will have to consider if the arbitration clause in a streaming service contract can really be applied to a serious allegation of wrongful death through negligence at a theme park.”

Jibreel Tramboo, a barrister at Church Court Chambers, expresses skepticism about Disney’s strategy. “The terms in the Disney+ trial are a weak argument for Disney to rely on,” Tramboo notes. “However, the clause in the ticket purchase from 2023 may present a stronger case, as there is a similar arbitration clause. Yet, there are many threads that may prevent them from going to arbitration, given the delicate circumstances of this case.”

Why Arbitration?

Disney’s motion seeks to move the case from a public court trial to arbitration, a process overseen by a neutral third party rather than a judge. Arbitration is generally quicker and more confidential, which Disney likely prefers to avoid the public scrutiny and negative publicity that a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit might attract.

Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, explains, “Disney understandably may want to benefit from the privacy and confidentiality that arbitration brings, rather than having a wrongful death suit heard in public with the associated publicity.”

Disney’s Statement

In response to the controversy, Disney has issued a statement expressing condolences while maintaining their legal stance. “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief,” the statement begins. “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.”

Disney has provided a link to the full statement via Scott Gustin: Disney’s Statement.

Implications and Future Considerations

This case, unfolding in British courts, could set a precedent for how companies might use user agreements to shield themselves from legal responsibility in unrelated areas. If Disney’s interpretation is accepted, it could prompt a reevaluation of how user agreements are drafted and applied, potentially leading consumers to think twice before agreeing to broad terms and conditions.

As the legal battle continues, the outcome will likely influence future cases involving corporate accountability and consumer rights. For now, Disney’s strategy remains controversial, raising questions about the limits of contractual agreements and the scope of corporate responsibility.

For those following the case, it serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and potential overreach in modern legal agreements, especially in the realm of large corporations.