The wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts serves as a reminder to consumers of the importance of reading the fine print when signing up for streaming services or apps. The lawsuit was filed by the family of a woman who died after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs, owned by Disney. Disney is attempting to have the case dropped by arguing that the plaintiff, the woman’s husband, had signed up for a trial subscription of the Disney+ streaming service, which includes an agreement to settle disputes through arbitration.
The family of Kanokporn Tangsuan, the woman who died, claims she had a fatal allergic reaction after eating at an Irish pub in Disney Springs that was advertised as offering “allergen free food”. Despite informing the server multiple times of her severe nut and dairy allergy, the lawsuit alleges that the meal was guaranteed to be allergen-free. Tangsuan later collapsed while shopping and died from anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system. Disney has expressed their condolences for the family’s loss but noted that the Irish pub is not owned or operated by the company.
Disney’s argument in court is that the plaintiff had previously agreed to settle any disputes with the company through arbitration when he signed up for a trial of Disney+. The company emphasizes that the subscriber agreement includes a clause that disputes must be resolved through individual arbitration. However, Piccolo’s lawyer argues against this, stating that it is unreasonable to expect all Disney+ subscribers to waive their rights to sue the company, especially when their case is unrelated to the streaming service. This case highlights the complexities and challenges consumers face when agreeing to terms and conditions that heavily favor companies.
John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, points out that consumers are often presented with agreements that they cannot negotiate and are forced to simply agree or decline. Davisson suggests that consumers support lawmakers and regulators who are attentive to such issues. Although historically, these agreements have been sided with companies, there has been a shift among policymakers and regulators to acknowledge the difficulty consumers face in understanding and interpreting these dense contracts, especially in an increasingly online world.
In conclusion, the lawsuit against Disney underscores the need for consumers to pay attention to the terms and conditions they agree to when using services or apps. The imbalance of power between consumers and companies in these agreements highlights the challenges individuals face in understanding and navigating legal documents that heavily favor corporations. As policymakers and regulators begin to recognize these challenges, consumers may be better protected in the future. It is essential for individuals to be aware of the terms they are agreeing to and to advocate for greater transparency and fairness in legal agreements.
