The Walt Disney Company is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a widower, claiming he agreed to resolve any disputes with the entertainment giant and its affiliates through arbitration when he registered for a free trial of Disney+.

In February, Jeffrey Piccolo initiated legal action against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts following the death of his wife at a restaurant within Walt Disney World.

His wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, had nut and dairy allergies and dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub, found in Disney Springs, a mixed-use complex in Florida. She suffered a severe allergic reaction and subsequently passed away.

According to Disney’s legal team, the case should be handled by an external arbitrator because Piccolo consented to arbitration when signing up for his Disney+ account in 2019 and when he purchased EPCOT tickets through Disney’s website in 2023.

Lawyers representing Piccolo argued that he had never entered into an agreement with Walt Disney Parks. They further contended that even if such an agreement existed, its terms wouldn’t apply to his wife’s situation.

“We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family and empathize with their sorrow. As the restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, we are simply defending ourselves against these legal claims,” a Disney spokesperson stated.

Raglan Road Irish Pub has not yet responded to requests for comment. In their legal documents, Disney stated that its role regarding the restaurant is one of a landlord.

Are consumers unintentionally forfeiting their legal rights when they enroll in a streaming platform? It seems likely.

“Sadly, Disney might have a strong case here,” remarked Christine Bartholomew, a law professor at the University of Buffalo. “The Supreme Court has historically upheld arbitration clauses as binding, regardless of how small the print is in the terms and conditions.”

Daily, we mindlessly click “I agree” when registering or purchasing tickets, but the legal jargon hidden in those agreements can have serious implications.

“Under current law, a mandatory arbitration clause in terms and conditions can compel parties to comply, even if the consumer was unaware of or did not comprehend the terms,” explained Bartholomew.

Inclusion of forced arbitration clauses is a widespread legal strategy to sidestep class action lawsuits and hefty financial penalties.

Companies assert that arbitration is a fair process for consumers, often faster and less costly. Yet critics highlight that the private nature of arbitration puts consumers at a significant disadvantage, leading few to take their cases to arbitration.

The subscriber agreement for Disney+ specifies that it applies to all disputes involving Walt Disney Co. or its affiliates, with two exceptions.

“Rarely does anyone read these contracts, yet courts uphold them,” said Jeff Sovern, a law professor at the University of Maryland.

Consumers retain some of their rights in these contracts, but many are relinquished, including their constitutional right to a jury trial and their access to the court system, Sovern emphasized.

“While Congress has restricted the use of arbitration clauses in certain transactions, I believe it’s not sufficient,” he noted.

The wrongful death lawsuit states that Tangsuan and Piccolo chose the restaurant due to its advertisement stating a commitment to catering to individuals with allergies.

Upon informing the waiter of Tangsuan’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, she received clear assurances that the food would not contain allergens, according to the case.

When their orders of broccoli and corn fritters, scallops, and onion rings arrived without allergen-free flags, Piccolo and Tangsuan again asked if the dishes were safe for her to consume and were told they were.

Approximately 45 minutes later, while shopping nearby, Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction. Despite using an EpiPen, she struggled to breathe and collapsed. She was rushed to the hospital but later died.

The medical examiner confirmed that her death was caused by anaphylaxis resulting from elevated levels of dairy and nuts found in her system.

Disney establishments are known for their rigorous protocols regarding food allergies and their focus on allergen safety.

Legislators have suggested measures to empower consumers. Some states have attempted to tackle this issue. A rule proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau allowing consumers to file class action lawsuits against banks, credit card companies, and other financial services was defeated in 2017.

This occurred during a time when Wells Fargo was involved in a significant controversy over millions of unauthorized customer accounts. Richard Cordray, the CFPB’s director at the time, stated that the ruling maintained “a two-tiered justice system.”

David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law who previously led the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, expresses skepticism that Disney’s terms of service are relevant in this situation. However, he notes that mandatory arbitration is a significant issue for consumers.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was very close to implementing a rule for consumer protection, but Congress intervened and halted progress,” he explained.

He emphasized that the CFPB is required by Congress to tackle the issue of mandatory arbitration, stating that “people like myself are advocating for the CFPB to create a new rule that safeguards consumers.”

“Most companies in the United States enforce mandatory arbitration, which largely prevents consumers from seeking relief,” he remarked. “While businesses appreciate this, individuals harmed by these companies find it difficult to access any avenue for redress, and that’s a significant issue.”

What can consumers do to navigate this predicament? Bartholomew mentions that their choices are quite limited.

“According to the Supreme Court, if you disagree, you shouldn’t agree to it,” she stated.

However, she believes that this is not practical advice. Instead, she urges consumers to advocate for legislative changes.

“For consumers to address this issue effectively, they need to support politicians who are willing to shift the balance of power away from corporations and towards consumers,” Bartholomew suggested.