Disney has been in the headlines lately but not for a good reason. It’s shocking that the company was unable to foresee the PR nightmare that was bound to happen by taking such an absurd legal position after 42-year-old Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor from New York, died of anaphylaxis after she dined at an Irish pub last year at a Walt Disney World resort, choosing the location specifically because the Disney website advertised its allergen-free options. Tangsuan was allergic to nuts and dairy and religiously carried an EpiPen on her. She also informed her waiter numerous times of her allergies, and was assured the options she chose would be allergen-free. But about 45 minutes after the meal, she began having difficulty breathing, despite administering her EpiPen. She later died at a local hospital, prompting her husband to bring a suit against Disney. The crazy part of the already tragic story is that Disney wanted a Florida court to dismiss the lawsuit because her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, once signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ years ago.
“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause,” the company wrote in its motion. “The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’.”
Disney further argued her husband gave the OK to a similar arbitration agreement when he created an account on its website prior to their visit.
Now, after tremendous pushback, Disney has reversed course.
Despite repeated claims that Disney’s only role in the tragedy was as a “landlord” to Raglan Road, on Monday a representative for the company said that it acknowledged that arbitration would draw out an already painful process for Mr. Piccolo. The hearing to move the case to arbitration, set for Oct. 2, was canceled on Tuesday.
“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Parks, said in a statement. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
Initially, Disney argued in legal filings that the matter should be settled by an outside arbitrator, because Mr. Piccolo had agreed to settle any disputes out of court when he signed up for a free trial of its streaming service on his PlayStation and again when he purchased tickets to Epcot through the MyDisney website.
Brian R. Denney, a lawyer for Mr. Piccolo, said in a statement that Disney’s attempt to prevent the case from going to trial should be “looked at with skepticism.”
“My guess is that they decided that the harm they were suffering in the public eye was greater than the risk of losing money on this case,” Matt Adler, a partner at Troutman Pepper specializing in arbitration, told the Times.
