Disney’s Streaming Agreement Sparks Legal Battle in Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Staff Editor Disney Faces Controversy Over Wrongful Death Lawsuit Defense
In a surprising legal maneuver, Disney is attempting to use its streaming service agreement to defend against a wrongful death lawsuit. Jeffrey Piccolo, widower of Kanokporn “Amy” Tangsuan, who died from an allergic reaction at a Disney resort, has filed suit against the entertainment giant.
Tangsuan’s death occurred after she was allegedly assured about food safety at the resort. The incident has now escalated into a complex legal battle, with Disney arguing that Piccolo forfeited his right to sue by agreeing to the terms of a Disney+ free trial.
The company’s defense hinges on the Disney+ subscription trial agreement, which they claim impacts Piccolo’s right to pursue legal action. This move has sparked outrage among Piccolo’s attorneys, who view it as an attempt to evade responsibility through a technicality.
Disney is pushing for arbitration instead of a jury trial, a strategy often referred to as “forced arbitration.” This practice has faced criticism and is the subject of ongoing congressional efforts to outlaw such clauses in consumer agreements.
Piccolo’s legal team has filed a counter-argument, challenging the applicability of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement to this wrongful death case. They assert that the agreement does not cover injuries sustained by Piccolo’s wife and question the ethical implications of Disney’s defense strategy.
The case has drawn attention not only for its unusual legal approach but also for the relatively small sum of $50,000 in damages sought by Piccolo. Critics suggest that Disney’s aggressive legal tactics may be an attempt to control the narrative surrounding the incident.
This lawsuit joins a growing list of high-profile legal disputes involving major corporations, including recent cases such as Elon Musk’s X platform resisting information disclosure in an Epstein victim case.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case continues to raise questions about corporate responsibility, consumer rights, and the extent to which digital service agreements can impact real-world legal disputes.
