Disney is currently trying to get a “wrongful death” lawsuit thrown out on the basis that the grieving widower who brought the case signed up for a free-trial of Disney+ five years ago. The company’s streaming services has a policy that redirects legal grievances from litigation to forced arbitration. Corporate lawyers are now arguing that this policy is somehow relevant to a case involving a woman’s death at one of its resorts.
CNN reports that the plaintiff in the case, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a lawsuit after his wife, 42-year-old medical doctor Kanokporn Tangsuan, died at Disney Springs, one of the company’s Florida locations, in 2023. Piccolo and Tansuan had dined at one of the resort’s restaurants, where they were repeatedly assured by their waiter that Tansuan’s meal could be prepared without dairy or nuts, ingredients to which Tansuan was deathly allergic. Not long after eating the meal, Tansuan went into anaphylactic shock and passed away. A medical examiner’s investigation into Tansuan’s death found that her “cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” the suit states.
Now, Disney is claiming that Piccolo can’t sue the company because he briefly signed up for a free trial of Disney+, the company’s streaming service, in 2019. Disney+ includes a clause in its terms and conditions that says all legal action must be funneled through forced arbitration—an increasingly common legal tactic that allows companies to avoid facing litigation. The company has claimed that Piccolo also used the My Disney Experience app to buy tickets to the Epcot theme park—a service that sports similar legal language.
Piccolo’s lawyer called the company’s argument “preposterous” and wrote in court papers that Disney is “explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+.”
“The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement,” Piccolo’s lawyers further wrote.
According to CNN, Piccolo is asking Disney—a company worth $155 billion—for damages in excess of $50,000, including for emotional distress, loss of companionship and protection, loss of income, and medical and funeral expenses. The company’s response is apparently: Sorry, we can’t help you because you signed up to watch The Mandalorian five years ago. This may be the best reason yet to never go anywhere near the company’s mediocre streaming service.
Gizmodo reached out to Disney to see if they have some sort of excuse for this bullshit and will update this story if it responds.
AllergiesdisneyEpcotStreaming Services
Concept art for the next entry in the wildly popular Disney franchise made its debut at the recent D23.
The first foray into Disney and Epic's $1.5 billion investment deal involved an empty digital theater and a lot of upcoming Fortnite skins.
Having already crested $1 billion at the box office, Deadpool & Wolverine is on track to usurp The Joker as the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time.
Oh, and crossovers with Disney Villains, The Mandalorian, The Incredibles, and more. But it's mostly skins.
Disney+'s adaptation of the Rick Riordan books will return in 2025, and it's taking Percy and friends to the Bermuda Triangle.
Heyyyyy, we finally get a look at the Lilo & Stitch remake and Stitch himself looks surprisingly not half bad.
We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our sites.©2024 GIZMODO USA LLC. All rights reserved.
Mode
Follow us
Mode
Follow us
Source: Gizmodo