Disney’s Shocking Legal Defense – Streaming Trial Blocks Lawsuit Over Wife’s Death

In a twist that feels more like fiction than reality, Disney is invoking a defense so audacious it could make your head spin: they’re claiming that a man can’t sue them for his wife’s tragic death because—wait for it—he once signed up for a Disney+ trial. Yes, that’s the hill they’ve chosen to die on.

Jeffrey Piccolo, grieving and desperate for justice after his wife’s untimely death from a catastrophic allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant, is seeking $50,000 in damages. But Disney, the entertainment titan, has pulled out a legal card so wild it’s hard to believe. They argue that because Piccolo clicked “I agree” to a set of terms and conditions for a Disney+ trial five years ago, he’s forfeited his right to take them to court. Arbitration, they say, is his only option—an out-of-court process where disputes are settled by a neutral party, not a judge or jury.

WOW!

Disney is arguing the wrongful death suit against them should be tossed out because the husband of the woman who died signed up for a Disney+ trial… pic.twitter.com/7VmNaG8ca6

— Philip DeFranco 👊🏻 (@PhillyD) August 15, 2024

Let’s rewind. Dr. Tangsuan, an accomplished physician from NYU Langone, was enjoying what should have been a safe and delightful meal at Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant. She had made her life-threatening allergies crystal clear to the staff, who reassured her again and again that her food would be free of the dangerous allergens. But as fate would have it, those assurances were hollow. Just 45 minutes after savoring her meal, Tangsuan collapsed in a store, gasping for air. Despite administering an EpiPen and receiving emergency care, she couldn’t be saved. The official cause of death? Anaphylaxis triggered by exposure to nuts and dairy, the very ingredients she had so desperately tried to avoid.

Now, in a move that defies all logic, Disney is arguing that Piccolo can’t take them to court because of a streaming service trial he signed up for years ago. According to Disney, those innocuous clicks bound him to resolve any dispute—not just about Disney+, but with any Disney entity—through arbitration. Even worse, they argue this applies even in a case as grave as his wife’s death.

A doctor died at a Disney Springs restaurant from an allergic reaction after being assured the meal was allergen-free

The widower then sued

Disney is now trying to dismiss the suit — arguing he agreed to arbitrate all disputes when signing up for a Disney+ free trial years… pic.twitter.com/uCPljTN6e3

— Culture Crave 🍿 (@CultureCrave) August 14, 2024

Piccolo’s lawyer has slammed this argument as nothing short of “absurd” and “preposterous,” calling out Disney for attempting to hide behind legal fine print to dodge responsibility. The notion that agreeing to terms for a Disney+ trial would block Piccolo from seeking justice for his wife’s death in court is, as his attorney put it, “outrageously unreasonable and unfair.” And what’s more, the lawyer insists, those terms only apply to Piccolo, not his wife, who never agreed to anything.

Disney wants to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit by arguing that the husband agreed to arbitration when he signed up for a Disney+ trial years ago. The lawsuit involves his wife’s fatal allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant. pic.twitter.com/wGIFQwptQG

— Gabriel Corrêa (@Gabriiel_Correa) August 14, 2024

Meanwhile, Disney is trying to wash its hands of the whole situation by pointing out that Raglan Road is an independent restaurant, merely leasing space from them. They’ve expressed their “deep sympathy” for the family but insist that their role as landlord doesn’t make them liable for the tragedy that unfolded.

Major Points

• Disney claims a Disney+ trial agreement bars a man from suing for his wife’s death.
• Jeffrey Piccolo seeks $50,000 after his wife died from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant.
• Disney argues arbitration is required due to the Disney+ terms he agreed to years ago.
• Piccolo’s lawyer calls the defense “absurd” and insists it shouldn’t apply to this tragic case.
• Legal battle set for October 2 could impact how companies use fine print in future lawsuits.

Lap Fu Ip – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News