Imagine this: you're signing up for a free trial of a streaming service—something most of us have done countless times—barely glancing at the terms and conditions before clicking "agree." Now, fast forward a few years, and you're visiting a Disney theme park, enjoying a well-deserved holiday. The last thing you'd expect is that those same terms you skimmed could now impact your rights in a completely unrelated situation.
In an unusual legal manoeuvre, Disney is attempting to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit by invoking the terms and conditions agreed to by a subscriber of its streaming service, Disney+.
They're arguing that a clause buried in the Disney+ terms of use, which many people might have agreed to without much thought, should prevent a grieving husband from taking his case against Disney. Tragically, the man's wife passed away following a meal at a Disney World restaurant. Disney's legal argument feels both surprising and unsettling, especially when you consider that the man wasn’t even a paying Disney+ customer - he had only signed up for a free trial!
This situation has sparked widespread concern because it touches on something many of us are guilty of: not reading the fine print. If something as seemingly innocent as a streaming service agreement could be used to waive your rights in other, completely unrelated contexts, it raises the question—what else could we be unknowingly agreeing to?
The Tragic Incident
The lawsuit stems from the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, a physician from New York, who died from an allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, Florida. Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, claims that despite repeatedly informing the restaurant staff of his wife's severe allergies to dairy and nuts, she was assured that her meal was allergen-free. Unfortunately, after consuming the meal, Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction and died later that day.
Disney's Legal Argument
Disney's defence hinges on an arbitration clause found in the terms of use for its Disney+ streaming service. The company argues that when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ trial in 2019, he agreed to settle any disputes with Disney through arbitration rather than litigation. This clause purportedly covers "all disputes" involving Disney or its affiliates, which Disney claims includes Walt Disney Parks and Resorts.
Disney's legal team contends that this agreement should prevent Piccolo from pursuing a wrongful death lawsuit in court, suggesting that the case should instead be resolved through arbitration. They argue that the terms of use are binding and that Piccolo's acceptance of these terms applies to all Disney entities, regardless of the nature of the dispute.
Criticism and Legal Challenges
Piccolo's attorneys have fiercely contested Disney's argument, describing it as "absurd" and "outrageously unreasonable." They argue that it is implausible to suggest that signing up for a streaming service could waive a person's right to a jury trial in unrelated matters. In this case, a wrongful death claim. The attorneys also point out that Piccolo agreed to the terms only on his behalf. Therefore, he did not agree on behalf of his wife or her estate, which actually did not exist at the time.
Legal experts have weighed in, expressing scepticism about Disney's approach. Brian Denney, Piccolo's attorney, stated;
"The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience".
How would this be treated in Australia?
In Australia, the legal framework for wrongful death claims is somewhat different. The standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities." However, while waivers can be used to limit liability, they are typically scrutinised to ensure they are reasonable and fair.
Australian consumer law also emphasises transparency and fairness, particularly in the context of contractual terms that could significantly disadvantage consumers. Therefore, it is unlikely that a similar defence would succeed in Australia. Courts may view such an expansive interpretation of a digital service agreement as unreasonable. Australian law tends to protect consumers from overly broad or unexpected contractual terms, especially when they are unrelated to the service provided.
The Road Ahead: Legal and Consumer Implications
Disney's attempt to use Disney+ terms to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit raises significant questions about the limits of digital service agreements and their applicability to unrelated legal matters.
As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched for its implications on consumer rights and corporate liability. The hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2024, where both parties will present their arguments, and the court's decision could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
