Disney has backed away from claims that a man’s signing up terms for a Disney+ free trial prevented him from suing the company over the death of his wife.
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the restaurant owners after his wife died from a severe allergic reaction after dining at Disney World in Florida in 2023.
Disney had argued that the case should go to arbitration, citing a clause in the terms of use of the Disney+ streaming service, which Piccolo signed up for briefly in 2019.
However, following backlash, the matter ended up being heard in court.
“We believe this situation requires a sensitive approach to expedite resolution for the family who has experienced such a devastating loss,” Disney’s Josh D’Amaro said in a statement to the BBC.
“As such, we have decided to waive our right to arbitration and pursue this matter in court.”
Arbitration means a neutral third party, who is not a judge, oversees a dispute. It is usually a faster, less expensive and less public process than a court case.
Piccolo and his wife, Dr. Kanokpong Thanhsuan, dined at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub located on the Disney Springs grounds in Orlando but independently owned.
He claims the restaurant failed to take adequate care of his wife, despite him repeatedly informing them about her severe allergies to dairy and nuts.
She died in hospital later that day.
Her death was determined by the coroner to be “the result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her body,” according to the lawsuit.
Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 (£38,400), in addition to other damages relating to pain and suffering, loss of income, medical expenses and legal costs.
Disney claims it had no authority to control the management or operation of the restaurants.
Piccolo’s lawyers had previously called Disney’s argument that the case should not go to court “unrealistic.” They have not yet commented on Disney’s change of course.
It is unclear whether Disney would have prevailed if the judge had allowed arbitration.
Disney argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the case were unique.
But legal experts told the BBC they were “pushing the boundaries of contract law”.
“Disney is arguing that agreeing to terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with the company, which is novel and could have huge potential ramifications,” said Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stoke Partnership Solicitors, who is not involved in the case.
But Church Court Chambers barrister Jibril Trembout said the Disney+ trial conditions were “a weak argument for Disney to rely on”.
Disney says it is filing court papers to dismiss the arbitration claim.
