Critical lessons for consumer-facing businesses from the Disney wrongful death lawsuit

Disney has withdrawn its claim that a customer cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of Disney+ terms and conditions.

Disney recently made headlines after a widower sued the company over his wife’s death due to a severe allergic reaction. Jeffrey Piccolo alleges that Raglan Road Irish Pub, located at Disney’s Florida resort, failed to uphold its advertised commitment to accommodating guests with food allergies. Despite assurances from the waiter that his wife's meal was free of allergens, it allegedly contained elevated levels of dairy and nuts, leading to her fatal anaphylactic shock.

Disney's defence cites arbitration clause in terms and conditions

In its initial response, Disney distanced itself from liability, arguing that it had no control over Raglan Road's operations or management, as Disney merely serves as the landlord. However, in a subsequent filing, Disney introduced a new defence, requesting the dismissal of the case based on an arbitration clause in Mr. Piccolo’s Disney+ subscription.

This clause, which was part of the terms and conditions Mr. Piccolo agreed to during a free trial, mandates that all disputes be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. Arbitration allows people to settle disputes without going to court and generally involves a neutral arbitrator who reviews arguments before making a binding decision.

While Disney also argued that Mr Piccolo had not just agreed to the arbitration terms in his Disney+ trial, but also again when he purchased tickets to the theme park online, the argument that the 150 million subscribers to Disney+ have waived their right to take Disney to court for matters unrelated to Disney+ has proved controversial.

As a result, and under intense media scrutiny, Disney has now decided to waive this clause. The case will now proceed to court, with a hearing scheduled for October 2, 2024. Despite this decision however, Disney has indicated that it will continue to include the arbitration clause in its terms and conditions.

Key takeaways for UK B2C companies

While this case is of course subject to US law, it is worth noting that such a clause might be considered unfair and unenforceable in the UK. This is because the Consumer Rights Act 2015 protects consumers from terms which significantly disadvantage the consumer, including mandatory arbitration clauses.

Additionally, Disney may not have adequately highlighted these terms to consumers, raising questions as to whether they were sufficiently incorporated into the contract and are therefore binding. This concern is heightened when applying Disney+ subscription terms to unrelated activities, such as dining at an Irish pub, as this is something that a reasonable customer would not expect.

What can we do to help?

If you need advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please contact either James Sarjantson on 0113 201 0401 – ku.oc1728467794.fcl@1728467794nostn1728467794ajras1728467794j1728467794 or Thomas Taylor on 0113 204 0407 – ku.oc1728467794.fcl@1728467794rolya1728467794tt1728467794.

*Important information about our articles*