Disney Cites Streaming Agreement to Dismiss Wrongful Death Lawsuit
The Walt Disney Company DIS has filed a motion to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit, citing an arbitration clause in its Disney+ streaming service agreement. The lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Piccolo following the death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who allegedly suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at an Irish pub in Disney Springs.
Key Takeaways
- Disney+ Agreement: Disney argues that Piccolo, a Disney+ subscriber, agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration when he signed up for the service.
- Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit alleges that Tangsuan died after consuming food she was assured was allergen-free at the pub.
- Disney’s Argument: The company claims that its Terms of Use, which include a binding arbitration clause, were provided to subscribers during the sign-up process.
- Piccolo’s Argument: Piccolo’s attorney argues that it’s unreasonable to assume Disney+ subscribers have forfeited all rights to sue the company and its affiliates indefinitely, even for cases unrelated to the streaming service.
- Disney’s Response : Disney expressed sympathy for the family’s loss but emphasized that it does not own or operate the Irish pub.
- Hearing: A hearing on Disney’s motion is scheduled for October 2nd.
Disney Faces Increasing Legal Challenges
This legal battle adds to the growing list of legal challenges Disney has faced in recent months. In July 2024, Disney failed to have a lawsuit filed by former “Mandalorian” star Gina Carano dismissed. Carano was fired from the Disney+ Star Wars series after the studio labeled her social media posts as “abhorrent” and “denigrating” to cultural and religious identities.
In June, an antitrust suit concerning Disney’s ownership of Hulu and ESPN also moved forward. This lawsuit alleges that Disney’s control of these streaming platforms gives it an unfair advantage in the market.
Despite these legal hurdles, Disney reported strong third-quarter earnings earlier this month. The company’s revenue grew 4% year-on-year to $23.16 billion, largely driven by subscription revenue growth for Disney+.
Implications of the Case
This case raises important questions about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in online service agreements. While such clauses are often used by companies to limit their exposure to lawsuits, they can also be seen as a way to restrict consumers’ rights.
This case will be closely watched by legal experts and consumers alike. The outcome could have significant implications for the use of arbitration clauses in online contracts and the ability of consumers to seek redress for grievances.
Further Developments
Benzinga will continue to monitor this case and provide updates as they become available. Keep checking back for more information as the legal proceedings unfold.
Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors.