Gabrielle Russon
Even though Disney dropped a controversial legal strategy to fight a widower’s lawsuit by forcing arbitration, the plaintiff’s attorney is raising concerns that the arbitration clause still exists for the millions of people who subscribe to Disney+ and visit the theme parks.
“Although Disney has withdrawn its motion, the arbitration clauses they relied upon in their motion still exist on their various platforms,” attorney Brian Denney said in a statement this week. “This potentially puts other people injured by Disney’s negligence at risk of facing a similar legal challenge.”
New York tourist Jeffrey Piccolo sued Disney and Raglan Road Pub and Irish Restaurant in February after his wife died last year from severe food allergies following her meal at Disney Springs. Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor, checked with the independently-run restaurant several times to make sure her food was safe because of her extreme allergies to dairy and nuts. She died on Oct. 5, collapsing less than an hour after her meal, the lawsuit said.
Disney’s attorneys argued the wrongful death lawsuit should be paused and sent to arbitration — without going before a jury, like Piccolo wanted — because Piccolo signed up for a trial Disney+ subscription and purchased Epcot tickets on an app where Disney’s terms and conditions say legal disputes must go to arbitration.
Disney’s legal strategy “borders on the surreal” and was “absurd,” Denney said in court filings this month.
Disney’s and Piccolo’s attorneys were scheduled to meet Oct. 2 to make their arguments before Judge A. James Craner.
In a new twist Monday, Disney Experiences Chair Josh D’Amaro announced the company is no longer pursuing arbitration, allowing the lawsuit to move forward in Orange Circuit Court. The Oct. 2 hearing was canceled.
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” D’Amaro said in a statement Monday night to explain Disney’s reversal. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”
Denney said Piccolo will keep fighting for justice in trial court after his beloved wife’s death.
An estimated 17.7 million visitors went to the Magic Kingdom alone in 2023 — the No. 1 theme park in the world, according to an industry report.
Most people’s vacations are uneventful — sun, crowds, roller coasters, Mickey Mouse sightings, Dole Whips.
However, Disney is sued by dozens of people every year who claim they were injured from a slip and fall or something more serious — like motor scooter crashes, getting hurt on a ride or a freak occurrence.
“How many times are they going to try to do this?” said Miami lawyer Aaron Davis of Davis Goldman about the company using its Disney+ terms and conditions to fight theme park lawsuits. “What’s to stop Disney from trying this again for the next Disney+ subscriber that walks into Epcot? You know how many people are in that boat?”
Piccolo’s lawsuit appears to be the first time Disney brought up its terms and conditions to fight against a Disney World lawsuit since Disney+ launched in November 2019. Disney declined to comment for this story.
Davis was not involved in this lawsuit but spoke to Florida Politics since he handles personal injury and wrongful death cases, often focusing on corporate power abuse.
Davis said he believes Disney only gave up the arbitration fight after the company lost in the court of public opinion. Florida Politics broke the story in July, and other media outlets, including The New York Times and TMZ, covered it. Some Disney fans said they were shocked by the Mouse’s argument in court.
A Disney spokesperson said the company was only defending itself from the lawsuit, also filed against Raglan Road.
“The value of having the public view you in a positive way, it’s a lot more substantial than the value of what you may have gained by enforcing an arbitration provision,” Davis said. “They had a lot of high-price lawyers and in-house lawyers that (looked at) the likelihood of prevailing on that claim. And I think the likelihood probably decreased significantly when the public became outraged by what they were attempting to do.”
Would Disney have prevailed in court if the Oct. 2 hearing went on as previously planned?
“I don’t believe a Judge would have granted the motion to compel arbitration, but it could have happened. It’s possible. The plaintiff’s attorneys would have argued that using the consumer agreement to force arbitration was substantially and procedurally unconscionable,” California-based entertainment law lawyer Camron Dowlatshahi of Mills Sadat Dowlat LLP said in a statement to Florida Politics.
“But plaintiffs’ attorneys wouldn’t be able to argue that the consumer didn’t read the agreement. Even though consumers often don’t read these agreements, that argument doesn’t hold up in court.”
If Disney had lost in court — which Davis believes could have happened, especially after the negative publicity “sort of unleashed on this” — it could have set a precedent against Disney in future lawsuits.
“They probably said to themselves, ‘You know what? Let this die down and we’ll wait to fight another day,’” Davis said.
Disney benefits from taking lawsuits in front of an arbitrator — most likely a sophisticated lawyer or Judge — instead of a jury of Piccolo’s peers, who could be swayed by the emotional facts of this case, Davis said.
Tangsuan died alone in the hospital since she went shopping on her own and collapsed in Disney Springs, away from her husband and mother-in-law. Arbitration would save Disney on damages and litigation expenses, and it offers more privacy than a civil trial held in open court, Davis said.
Piccolo’s lawsuit comes as Florida lawmakers are passing laws favoring insurance companies and corporations, making it more difficult to sue, Davis added. Gov. Ron DeSantis argued reforms are needed to protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits and trial lawyers.
Disney “is trying to ride that wave,” Davis said.
