A wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts serves as a reminder to consumers of the importance of reading the fine print when signing up for streaming services and smartphone apps.
The lawsuit was filed by the family of a New York woman who died after eating at a restaurant at Disney Springs, a Disney-owned outdoor dining, shopping and entertainment center in Florida.
Disney argues that the suit should be dismissed because the plaintiff’s husband once subscribed to a trial version of its Disney+ streaming service, which Disney argues includes a subscription agreement where customers agree to resolve claims against Disney out of court and through arbitration.
John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the contracts, which customers agree to instantly by clicking “accept” when downloading an app or streaming service, are so unfavorable to consumers that it is often difficult to provide proper legal advice.
“Consumers are presented with this contract but don’t really have an opportunity to negotiate the terms,” Davison said. “It’s either yes or no.”
What are the details of the lawsuit against Disney?
The family of Kanokpong Tangsuan alleges in the lawsuit that the 42-year-old New York doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at an Irish pub at Disney Springs.
According to the lawsuit, Tang Xuan, her husband Jeffrey Piccolo, and Piccolo’s mother decided to dine at the Raglan Road restaurant in October 2023 because it was advertised on a Disney website as offering “allergy-free meals.”
According to the lawsuit, Tang Xuan repeatedly told store staff that she had severe allergies to nuts and dairy products, and staff “assured” her that the food was free of allergens.
About 45 minutes after finishing dinner, Thanh Xuan experienced difficulty breathing while shopping, collapsed and died at a hospital, according to the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the medical examiner determined her cause of death was “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.”
Where does Disney stand?
In a statement this week, Disney said it was “deeply saddened” by the family’s death, but stressed that the company does not own or operate the Irish pub that is the subject of the lawsuit.
Even more notable from a consumer protection perspective, Disney argues that when Piccolo signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019, he agreed to resolve any litigation against Disney out of court through arbitration and acknowledged that he had reviewed the fine print.
“The first page of your membership agreement states in all capital letters: ‘EXCEPT FOR SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS, ANY DISPUTES BETWEEN YOU AND US ARE SUBJECT TO A CLASS ACTION WAIVER AND MUST BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS,'” the company wrote in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Arbitration allows people to resolve disputes without going to court and usually involves a neutral arbitrator who considers arguments and evidence before issuing a binding decision, or award.
In a response filed this month, Piccolo’s lawyers argued that it’s “unreasonable” to believe that Disney+’s more than 150 million subscribers have waived all rights to sue the company and its affiliates in perpetuity, especially since their lawsuit has nothing to do with the popular streaming service.
What can consumers do to protect themselves?
It’s hard to give actionable advice to consumers when these agreements are so heavily favorable to the companies, but Davison offered to support lawmakers and regulators who are paying attention to these issues.
The FTC has historically supported the idea of disclosure clauses that protect companies even when contracts are arcane and difficult for average consumers to understand, but Davison says a shift is happening among policymakers and federal regulators.
“It is generally understood that as consumers go about their daily lives, it is literally impossible for them to read, interpret or fully understand all of the agreements that they are legally required to accept and abide by,” he said, “especially in an increasingly online world where we interact with dozens, even hundreds, of platforms and services a day.”
