Can a Streaming Services Agreement Require Arbitration in a Food Allergy Death Case?

Florida property insurers considering the expanded use of binding arbitration to resolve claims disputes may want to consider a recent arbitration move by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts: a response to a lawsuit against Disney that made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, are arguing that a five-year-old trial subscription to a Disney streaming service requires wrongful-death claims to be arbitrated outside of a courtroom.

In the Orange County, Florida, filing, Disney claims arbitration would help it avoid the “heavy costs of litigation.” The lawsuit was filed by the husband of a woman who died in 2023 from an allergic reaction to food served at a Disney-affiliated restaurant.

Orange County court records were not available online Wednesday. But the news website Law&Crime provided a download of the complaint and Disney’s motion to compel arbitration. The lawsuit alleges that the woman, Kanokporn Tangsuan, had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts. When the family visited Disney World last year, they chose to eat at the Raglan Road Irish Pub at Disney Springs because of its allergen-free commitment. Disney parks lease the property to the restaurant company, court filings show.

The woman, a doctor from New York, repeatedly asked the service staff if the food could be made without allergens. The staff assured them several times that it would be. But after finishing her meal, Tangsuan returned to her hotel room, started having trouble breathing and collapsed. She later died of what the lawsuit said was anaphylaxis from an allergic reaction to food.

The husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a lawsuit against Disney and the restaurant earlier this year. A hearing is set for October.

Disney’s lawyers did not respond to requests for comment from National Public Radio and other news organizations that reported on the case.

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Disney’s lawyers argued that in 2019, Piccolo signed up for a trial subscription to Disney+, a video streaming service. The fine print in the subscriber agreement notes that “any dispute between you and us, other than small claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration,” Disney’s filing explained.

Similar language may have been included in an agreement when Piccolo purchased Disney theme park tickets.

Piccolo’s lawyers, in court filings, called Disney’s legal argument “absurd,” verging on the surreal and fatalistic. Disney is trying to deprive the family of its right to a public jury trial, lawyers said.

“Even assuming that Ms. Tangsuan’s estate is bound by the arbitration provision in the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement with Mr. Piccolo, the terms of the agreement make it clear that Mr. Piccolo has only prospectively agreed to arbitrate claims related to the Disney+ streaming service.” read the lengthy response to the request to compel arbitration. “The Disney+ Subscriber Agreement states that there was no agreement to arbitrate claims against other Disney entities.”

The Tangsuan family is represented in part by Miami attorney Raoul Cantero, a former Florida Supreme Court justice who has been involved in other major lawsuits that could affect insurance settlements.

Photo: The Ragland Road Irish Pub at Disney Springs (Adobe Stock Images).