Even Disney has realized it was a bad idea to try to use the Disney+ Terms of Service to avoid a wrongful-death lawsuit

Even the notoriously cutthroat Disney Corporation has realized that it was being too snobby to a man who sued it over the death his wife at Disney World. Dr Kanokporn died in 2023 from a severe reaction to food at a Disney World restaurant, Florida, even though she had warned the staff about her allergies. In 2023, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo filed a lawsuit for wrongful death against Disney and the restaurant's owners.

Disney's lawyers intervene with one of the most amoral legal actions you'll ever witness. Piccolo's lawsuit includes references to language used on Disney's website about the restaurant. Disney argued in court that Piccolo couldn't sue Disney over language used on the website, because he signed up for Disney+ as part of a free trial in 2019. He had also agreed to its terms and conditions.

Disney said that these terms and conditions included a clause that stated users agreed to settle any disputes they have with the company regarding any of its services through arbitration (a nonpublic process overseen a neutral third-party). Disney's court filing states: "The arbitration clause covers 'all dispute' including 'disputes with The Walt Disney Company or their affiliates'."

Disney's lawyers argued, to add insult to injury, that Piccolo had again agreed to these terms: when he purchased the tickets for the couple's disastrous trip to Disney World through My Disney Experience. Disney added the final touch by claiming that Piccolo had agreed to these terms for his wife who was listed as a guest.

This argument has not yet been decided by the court. A sane person would have told Disney where to stick its Disney+ terms and condition. Piccolo's attorneys said that the claim "borders upon the surreal."

Disney's argument was made public last week and covered widely in the media. The reaction was almost unanimously one of disgust. Disney has announced that it will withdraw its arbitration demand following the backlash.

Disney's Josh D'Amaro told the BBC that the situation "requires a sensitive and expeditious approach" to help the family deal with the pain of their loss. "As a result, we've chosen to waive our arbitration rights and let the matter proceed in court."

Jamie Cartwright, a lawyer at a high price, told the Beeb that he believes the "adverse publicity" could have been the catalyst for the change of heart. Cartwright says that by trying to move the claim to a confidential setting based on very tenuous grounds, the company only succeeded in attracting the attention and publicity it wanted to avoid.

Zoom out a bit, Disney's behavior here was absolutely awful, but it's a case that courts have been ruling upon for years under various guises. How many people read the terms and condition of any product before accepting them? Is there anyone alive who reads the entire Activision EULA prior to playing the new Call of Duty game?

Disney's approach went even further. It was trying say that because Piccolo had signed up for an unrelated Disney product before, the terms and condition associated with that product would then apply to his interactions with Disney in all of its services. This is a breath-taking attempt by a company to get out of a wrongful-death lawsuit. It almost makes you wish that it had been brought before a judge.

Piccolo is suing Disney in excess of $50,000 as well as damages, including pain and suffering, lost income, medical costs, and legal fees. Disney claims that it is not responsible for the incident because the restaurant operates independently. The case will be heard at a future date.