Disney Drops Arbitration Defense, Agrees to Face Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Court

Disney has made a reversal over its highly controversial gesture on a wrongful death lawsuit, now to progress in court rather than having the matter proceed in court, throwing out corporate hypocrisy and giving in to public anger. When Disney tried to use the fine print in a Disney+ free trial to keep a lawsuit from proceeding, the public opinion turned into an uproar.

Filed after a tragic incident is the lawsuit of Kanokporn Tangsuan, an NYU doctor who, with her husband Jeffrey Piccolo, dined last October at a restaurant in the Disney Springs complex, just to die yielding what the lawyers of the lady's husband assert were extreme amounts of dairy and nuts in her body because of food-induced anaphylaxis, thinking her meal was free of allergens. In February, Piccolo filed a $50,000 lawsuit against the restaurant and Disney over the incident, which seeks damages for medical expenses, funeral costs, and emotional distress.

Disney's first argument was that Piccolo could not sue because he had signed an arbitration clause when he signed up for Disney+ and bought tickets to its theme parks, which said all disputes must be handled by arbitration, not the courts. Among the legal experts and members of the public at large, this defense, since the filing, has been subject to much criticism with those questioning the validity and fairness of enforcing such a clause in this context.

Disney had responded with increased public and legal pressure to reverse a previous stance of an agreement to arbitration. The company states it will now let the lawsuit go in front of a court, stating "above all things at Disney, we consider humanity." According to chairman Josh D'Amaro of Disney Experiences: "the company is going to do things with sensitivity and assured Piccolo's family will come up with a resolution as soon as it can be done."

It clearly departs from the old Disney defense, where it had wholly relied on the argument that the terms to which Piccolo agreed provided arbitration as the only remedy. That position—critics charged it stretched contract law too far—received much skepticism and criticism from a host of legal quarters.

The arbitration clause in Disney's terms and conditions established that all disputes must be processed through binding arbitration and not in the courts. While this is an extremely common practice within most consumer agreements, it was one of the issues raised in contention in this case. Some critics have argued that the insertion of such clauses in an attempt to avoid legal culpability in cases of great injury or loss of life is inappropriate and possibly unjust.

These drawbacks include the fact that it is rather unrealistic for one to read out and comprehend lengthy legal terminology before accepting them. According to Deloitte in 2017, it is estimated that 91% of individuals have agreed to legal terms without reading them. The percentage in itself addresses a much deeper problem in relation to transparency and fairness of the agreement.

As the case goes to trial, Piccolo's attorney, Brian Denney, says he will keep fighting for his client. How the court decides could be the future of how seriously corporations will take the crafting of arbitration clauses in the face of particularly egregious allegations and harm.

In other words, Disney is pulling the arbitration defense—signaling a shift in its legal strategy that parallels a larger debate about just how fair and enforceable such clauses in consumer contracts are that mandate the use of arbitration. Now, the case will proceed to court, finally giving Piccolo his day in court to present his case.