Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Did I Waive My Right to Sue Disney By Accepting Their Terms and Conditions?

By Mariana Petersen, J.D. | Reviewed by Catherine Hodder, Esq. | Last updated on

In what many are calling an absurd move, Disney claimed that a widower whose wife died from an allergic reaction after dining at a restaurant in Disney Springs, Florida, has no right to sue in court. According to Disney, he waived his right by agreeing to the terms and conditions when he purchased Disney World tickets on the app and subscribed to Disney+.

The Facts

Jeffrey Piccolo sued the restaurant and Disney for damages for wrongful death after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from anaphylactic shock after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant.

As alleged by the plaintiff, they advised the restaurant staff of Tangsuan’s allergy and repeatedly asked if the food could be prepared safely, to which they were assured that it could. Within 45 minutes, Tangsuan went into shock and died later at a local hospital.

The Lawsuit

The plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000 for wrongful death. The damages include pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of companionship and protection, and medical and funeral expenses. It’s important to clarify that the $50,000 doesn’t reflect the actual amount they are seeking but the minimum amount that will put the case in a higher court according to Florida’s statutes. Considering the plaintiff’s wife was employed as a doctor, the total damages would most likely be higher.

The Motion to Compel Arbitration

Disney argues for arbitration because consumers agree to it in Disney's terms and conditions, specifically:

  • “You subscribed to Disney Plus.” The subscription to the streaming service contains a clause stating that disputes are to be resolved by arbitration, not in court. Disney gives the option to reject the arbitration agreement, but this must be done by mail within 30 calendar days of the acceptance.
  • “You purchased tickets to enter Epcot Center park at Disney World by agreeing to the terms and conditions of the app.” The terms and conditions of the Disney parks app also contain a binding arbitration clause.

As absurd as the argument may sound, other companies have used the same strategy as Disney. For example, DirectTV argued that it was appropriate to hear a case in arbitration in which the plaintiff had signed a contract agreeing to this method with an affiliated company, AT&T.

Does Agreeing to Disney’s Terms and Conditions Mean I Lose My Right to Sue?

The terms and conditions of the Disney Plus subscription contain a clause waiving the right to resolve disputes in court (binding arbitration) and to participate in class actions. Disney representatives stated that this clause extends to all disputes involving the company, meaning the entire Walt Disney Company, in perpetuity.

Understandably, the plaintiff and many people question the extremely broad application of the terms and conditions that Disney alleged. Those against Disney’s argument claim that it’s ridiculous that agreeing to terms of purchasing park tickets or streaming services takes away the right to sue for damages for wrongful death in court.

It’s also worth mentioning that Piccolo only signed up for the free trial of the Disney + service for one month, and this happened in 2019.

Finally, on Monday, after an avalanche of outraged reactions, Disney agreed to have the case decided in court. A spokesperson for the conglomerate announced that this was the “sensible resolution” and that they had “decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

In reality, the right Disney is talking about is unclear. The judge would have had to decide if the binding arbitration Disney claims actually extended to this case, considering that a wrongful death is a completely isolated event from the ticket purchase or streaming subscription, albeit involving the same company.

Other arguments against Disney’s challenge, in addition to the broad extension of the terms and conditions, include:

  • It is abusive, one-sided, and extremely unfair.
  • The terms of the contract are ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of the party who did not draft the agreement.
  • The widower was personally the one who agreed to those terms, not the group of heirs, so the estate as an entity could sue since Piccolo would be acting only as an agent.

An important clarification in this case is that we are not talking about the merits or Disney’s culpability. The point here is that Disney was asking that the case be resolved by arbitration, not a trial, which brings us to explain what arbitration entails.

Why Does Disney Want To Take the Case to Arbitration?

Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method to a court proceeding. Corporations prefer arbitration because it provides greater privacy, potentially lower costs, and prohibits class actions and punitive damages. Additionally, many people presume that jurists who decide the case will have a less passionate approach than a jury. The arbitration decision is final, which means it cannot be appealed.

Disney has concluded that pursuing arbitration in this situation would do more harm than good if they were to lose, further damaging their reputation. This case may make us think twice when we sign terms and conditions in contracts, often without reading them. It potentially puts consumers in a vulnerable situation and may require legal assistance when we face conglomerates.

Although this case still needs to be resolved, one thing we can already learn from it is that we should read the fine print.

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard