Death by Allergy and the Subscriber Agreement

Reread your Disney+ and ESPN+ subscription agreement. (You’ve read it before, right?) This time, read it more carefully. A man named Jeffrey Piccolo is learning this lesson the hard way — as if his life wasn’t hard enough lately.

Piccolo sued the Walt Disney Company after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died after developing an allergic reaction to food served at Disney World’s Raglan Road restaurant. In a lawsuit obtained by IndieWire, Piccolo says that he and Tangsuan, who were aware of her food allergies, were repeatedly “assured” that the food served to her there was “allergen-free.” The coroner’s report found Tangsuan’s cause of death was “anaphylaxis due to high levels of dairy and tree nuts in her system.”

Piccolo has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney Parks. He is seeking damages “in excess of $50,000,” as well as attorneys’ fees and other costs. First, he is asking only for a jury trial.

Here’s the illogical part. Disney responded by asking to force arbitration instead. Why? “In November 2019, Piccolo initially created a Disney account through the Disney+ website,” the request (also obtained by IndieWire) states.

We’ve all done it: Disney+ launched in the US on November 12, 2019.

You might be wondering, what does his wife’s death have to do with watching TV? Well, according to Disney, signing up for Disney+ means subscribers can’t file lawsuits. They must resolve any “disputes” with The Walt Disney Company and any of its affiliates through binding arbitration.

The motion continues: “Piccolo completed the web registration form by providing personal information, including his email address, and created a password. Before registering the account, Piccolo had to select ‘Agree and Continue.’ There was immediately a disclosure notifying Piccolo that ‘[b]By clicking “Agree and Continue”, you agree to our Subscriber Agreement. Then select Piccolo “Agree and Continue”.

“There may be instances where disputes arise between us.” Disney+ Subscriber Agreement “You, on the one hand, and Disney+ and/or ESPN+, on the other hand, agree to resolve all disputes (including any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates) through binding, individual arbitration.”

Under the decision, “disputes” are defined as relating to virtually any legal issue, at any time. There are exceptions for small claims courts and intellectual property rights.

Walt Disney Co. spokespeople did not immediately respond to IndieWire’s request for comment on this story.

In short, Disney claims that Piccolo (and all Disney+ or ESPN+ subscribers) have agreed to arbitrate any “past, present or future” legal issues with The Walt Disney Company by accepting the streaming service’s Subscriber Agreement. That means no class action lawsuits or jury trials. The “accept” at the end of the long, legally-lengthy Subscriber Agreement so we can access Blue (and all other content) is called a “click-through agreement.”

Disney’s lawyers have bolstered their position, stating that since Piccolo also purchased tickets online to visit Epcot (and never went), he was once again forced to waive his right to a jury trial, for anything Disney-related. The happiest place on earth, oh how happy.

“Whether Piccolo actually reviewed Disney’s terms is also immaterial,” Disney argues.

To be fair to Disney, it’s possible that other streaming companies have similar clauses in their subscriber agreements. I reached out to representatives for Netflix, Max, Paramount+, Peacock, Apple TV+, and Amazon Prime Video to ask if they have similar agreements. A few said they were “looking into it.” (Of course, Peacock’s parent company, NBCUniversal, is the only one that operates a theme park, so any direct comparison is imperfect.)

Disney+ plans start at $7.99 per month — or in Piccolo’s case, a lot more.