Given that Disney+ is in the business of streaming digital entertainment to TVs, phones, and other devices, it would probably come as a surprise to most people that the platform is also making headlines at the moment for its connection to a high-profile wrongful death lawsuit.
That connection certainly seemed like a headscratcher to me at first. Until, that is, I took a closer look at it and was reminded once again of why attorneys are among the most despised professionals on the planet.
What happened here is that a man’s wife had a severe allergic reaction after visiting Disney World in Orlando in 2023 and eating at a restaurant there. According to a filing in the subsequent lawsuit, a medical examiner attributed the woman’s death to “elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”
The man’s contention in his lawsuit is that the restaurant didn’t show sufficient care regarding his wife’s allergies, even though the restaurant was told repeatedly about them. He’s suing Disney for $50,000.
In a statement shared with news outlets including the BBC, Disney said: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. 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.”
So, what does this have to do with Disney+, you might ask?
Here’s the crazy part: Disney is trying to get this case taken out of court and moved over to arbitration because it argues that’s what the man tacitly agreed to when he opened a Disney+ account in 2019. Per the BBC:
“The entertainment company argues it cannot be taken to court because, in its terms of use, it says users agree to settle any disputes with the company via arbitration. It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.
“Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.”
Needless to say, it’s a disgusting legal argument, particularly for a company that pretends to be a paragon of virtue and beloved family-friendly entertainment. More than that, though, it might not even work; there’s a question of whether Disney’s idiotic and overly broad terms of service apply in this case, since the man is acting on behalf of his dead wife — who, importantly, did not agree to those terms of service.
Long story short, the company behind freaking Mickey Mouse wants to use its streaming service’s arbitration clause to tie the hands of a man alleging wrongful death through negligence at one of Disney’s theme parks. A judge will hear Disney’s motion to remove this case to arbitration in October.
