Disney withdraws attempt to stop allergy death lawsuit over Disney+ terms

Disney has dropped its lawsuit that a man could not sue the company over the death of his wife because of the terms he agreed to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of a restaurant after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction following a meal at Disney World in Florida.

Disney had argued that the case should instead be brought before arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of its streaming service Disney+, which Mr. Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019.

However, after strong reactions, it was decided that the case could now be heard in court.

“We believe this situation requires a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have suffered such a painful loss,” Disney's Josh D'Amaro said in a statement to the BBC.

“For this reason, we have decided to waive our right to arbitration and to litigate the matter in court.”

In arbitration, the dispute is overseen by a neutral third party who is not a judge. Such a process is usually faster, less expensive and less public than a court proceeding.

Mr. Piccolo and his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, dined at Raglan Road, an Irish-style pub at Disney Springs in Orlando.

He claims that the restaurant did not take sufficient consideration of his wife's severe milk and nut allergies, despite repeatedly informing her of them.

She died in hospital later that day.

According to the lawsuit, her death was confirmed by a medical examiner as “the result of anaphylactic shock due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her body.”

Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 (£38,400), as well as damages for suffering, loss of income, medical costs and legal expenses.

Mr. Piccolo's lawyers found Disney's argument that the suit should not go to trial “borderline surreal.” They have not yet responded to the reversal.

It is not known whether Disney would have been successful if a judge had ruled on its arbitration award.

Disney argued that the legal circumstances of this case were unique.

But legal experts told the BBC that this was “pushing the boundaries of contract law”.

“Disney's argument that acceptance of the terms and conditions of a product covers all interactions with that company is novel and has potentially far-reaching implications,” said Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, who are not involved in the case.

Meanwhile, Jibreel Tramboo, a lawyer at Church Court Chambers, said the terms of the Disney+ trial were a “weak argument for Disney to rely on.”

Disney says it is in the process of filing a motion with the court to vacate its arbitration award.