Karon Law Blog

Disney’s Whole New World of Arbitration Agreements (updated 8/20/24)

Posted August 19, 2024

[Editor’s/Founder’s Note-As a personal injury lawyer who’s handled several amusement ride accident cases, I was outraged to learn that Disney is arguing that the forced arbitration language in its Disney + streaming service agreement requires binding arbitration of any personal injury claims against it. In our latest blog post, my law clerk, Julia Sicard, explains how Disney is trying to (Donald) Duck responsibility in court. JAK]

Disney’s Whole New World of Arbitration Agreements

By Julia Sicard

Should signing up for a free trial of Disney+ prevent you from taking any future claim you might have against Disney to trial, including the death of a loved one? Like a villain in its own movies, Disney argues yes.

According to a recent New York Post article, Jeffrey Piccolo is suing Disney for the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tungsuan, who died of an allergic reaction from dining at Disney World Resort in Florida. Tungsuan repeatedly stressed to waitstaff that she was severely allergic to nuts and dairy and was assured each time that her food would be allergen-free. However, soon after eating, Tungsuan went into anaphylactic shock and died.

In what seems like a Hail Mary pass, Disney has moved to dismiss her husband’s wrongful death suit, claiming that Piccolo cannot sue because he agreed to a forced arbitration clause. (For a discussion of Uber’s use of clickwrap forced arbitration agreements in its app, see our previous blog post here https://www.karonlaw.net/blog/?id=794). Where is this alleged arbitration agreement, pray tell? In the terms of use for aone-month free trial of Disney+ that Piccolo signed up for and cancelled during the trial period way back in 2019.

According to the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitration agreements are supposed to apply to claims or controversies “arising out of” a specific contract or transaction. 9 U.S.C. § 2. Whether or not consenting to a free trial of a streaming service should block people from being able to sue for being poisoned by Disney’s food, injured on a Disney amusement ride, or run over by a Disney vehicle is for the Florida courts to decide. However, logic and justice would suggest that a forced arbitration clause in a streaming service should be limited to streaming-related claims. Contrarily, Disney argues that its arbitration clause applies to everything the light touches.

Piccolo’s attorneys argue that applying Disney’s arbitration agreement to this case would mean “any person who signs up for a Disney+ account…will have forever waived the right to a jury trial [for] any and all disputes” with Disney. Such an expansive application of the Disney+ arbitration clause would be “preposterous,” “outrageously unreasonable,” “absurd,” and in this author’s opinion, downright Goofy.

Despite their best efforts, Disney may not be able to wave a magic wand and make this lawsuit disappear.

[AN UPDATE-Today (August 20, 2024) CNN reports that Disney has decided to “waive” its right to arbitrate this wrongful death case. Disney still hasn’t admitted that the forced arbitration clause in its Disney + streaming agreement doesn’t apply so they may still try this again in another personal injury case. So, a very “Mickey Mouse” position. Here’s a link to the CNN story https://us.cnn.com/2024/08/19/business/disney-arbitration-wrongful-death-lawsuit-intl-hnk/index.html]