A wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is serving as a reminder to consumers of the importance of reading the fine print when signing up for a streaming service or smartphone app.
Disney is arguing that the lawsuit should be dropped because the plaintiff, the woman’s husband, once signed up for a trial subscription of the Disney+ streaming service.
That service, they argue, includes a subscriber agreement in which the customer agrees to settle any lawsuits against Disney out of court through arbitration.
“The consumer is presented with this contract and really doesn’t have an opportunity to negotiate the terms,” Davisson said.
“It’s yes or no.” What are the details of the lawsuit against Disney?
Customers are being reminded of the value of carefully reading the fine print when downloading a streaming service or smartphone app by a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.
The family of a New York lady who passed away after dining at a restaurant at Disney Springs, a Disney-owned outdoor dining, shopping, and entertainment complex in Florida, filed the lawsuit.
According to John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, these agreements—which users swiftly accept by clicking “I agree” when downloading an app or a streaming service—are so heavily weighted against the consumer that it’s frequently challenging to provide sound legal counsel.
According to Davisson, “the consumer really doesn’t have an opportunity to negotiate the terms—they are just presented with this contract.”. “The answer is yes or no. “.
What specifics are contained in the Disney lawsuit?
The lawsuit filed by the family of Kanokporn Tangsuan claims that the 42-year-old New York physician died from an allergic reaction that he suffered after dining at an Irish pub in Disney Springs.
The lawsuit alleges that because Raglan Road was advertised on Disney’s website as having “allergen free food,” Tangsuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo, and his mother chose to dine there in October 2023. “.
According to the lawsuit, Tangsuan told their server multiple times that she was extremely allergic to dairy and nuts, and the server “guaranteed” that the food was free of allergens.
In the lawsuit, it states that Tangsuan had breathing problems about 45 minutes after finishing their dinner, collapsed, and passed away in a hospital.
She died from “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system,” the medical examiner concluded, according to the lawsuit.
What role does Disney play?
Disney expressed its condolences for the family’s loss in a statement this week, but it made clear that the Irish pub, which is also being sued, is neither owned nor run by the company.
Most significantly from the perspective of consumer protection, Disney contends that when Piccolo signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019 and acknowledged that he had read the fine print, he consented to have any lawsuits against Disney settled out of court through arbitration.
In a move to have the case dismissed, the company claimed that “any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration,” which is stated in all capital letters on the first page of the Subscriber Agreement.
Without going to court, disputes can be resolved through arbitration, which usually consists of a neutral arbiter who considers all sides’ arguments and supporting documentation before rendering a legally-binding ruling, or award.
In a response filed this month, Piccolo’s attorney stated that it was “absurd” to think that the more than 150 million Disney+ subscribers had forever waived their right to sue the company and its affiliates, particularly since their case had nothing to do with the well-known streaming service.
What self-defense measures can customers take?
Davisson recommended backing legislators and regulators who are aware of these concerns, even though it is challenging to provide consumers with practical guidance when such agreements are so skewed in favor of corporations.
Despite the fact that these agreements are frequently complicated and difficult for average consumers to understand, the Federal Trade Commission has historically backed the idea of disclosure clauses protecting corporations. However, according to Davisson, federal regulators and legislators have changed.
He said, “Generally, it’s understood that consumers can’t possibly read, interpret, and fully understand every contract they are required by law to sign and to abide by as they go about their daily lives.”. Particularly in a world where we interact with dozens or even hundreds of platforms and services every day, where everything is becoming more and more online. “.
