Disney Drops Disney+ Arbitration Argument after Public Backlash

We have all done it. Our favorite show that was previously dropped by one streaming service gets picked up by another. And we are faced with a difficult question—do we pay another $20 to subscribe to yet another streaming service for eight hours of binge-watching bliss? After much contemplation, we decide to do it. It’s only $2.50 an episode. The math sounds great. Then, we get to the magical screen that tells us we can enroll in a free trial for 30 whole days. Without hesitation, we quickly click the buttons that allow us to watch our favorite show for free for 30 days, checking whatever boxes get us to the loading screen faster. As long as you remember to cancel before the trial period ends, there are no consequences.

However, according to Disney, if the streaming service you signed up for is Disney+, you just forfeited your right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary. At least, that is what Disney recently argued to a state court in Florida when the widower of a woman who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney World restaurant filed a lawsuit against Disney for wrongful death.

Negligence Suit Filed Against Disney

More specifically, last year, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan had dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant with her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, and his mother. This restaurant purportedly advertises itself as one that prioritizes accommodating individuals with food allergies. Mr. Piccolo alleges that Dr. Tangsuan notified the server that she was severely allergic to both dairy and nuts, and the server had a conversation with the chef about whether certain items on the menu could be made allergen-free. The server even “guaranteed” Dr. Tangsuan’s meal would be allergen-free. It was not.

Sadly, 45 minutes after the meal, Dr. Tangsuan suffered an acute allergic reaction from consuming nut and dairy products and died of anaphylaxis. As a result, Mr. Piccolo filed suit in February 2024, alleging negligence claims against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., d/b/a Disney Springs and Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant.

Disney Files Motion to Compel Arbitration

In a twist legal argument that led many to label Disney as the villain in this story, Disney filed a motion to compel arbitration because Mr. Piccolo had previously agreed to arbitrate all disputes against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. When would he have agreed to such a thing? When he signed up for a Disney+ account in November 2019 (and again when he purchased theme park tickets in 2023 through his Disney+ account).

Disney argued that whether Mr. Piccolo had ever read those terms was “immaterial.” The arbitration agreements, Disney argued, were valid “clickwrap” agreements. Clickwrap agreements have been enforced as valid by courts because they require the party to take physical action—checking a box—demonstrating their consent to the provided terms. Plus, the blue hyperlinks included in Disney’s Terms and Conditions that Mr. Piccolo should have been prompted to review and accept when he accessed his Disney account in September 2023 also provided “inquiry notice,” which can effectively impute actual knowledge of the arbitration to Mr. Piccolo because the links should have caused him to conduct a reasonable inquiry of the terms.

The Court of Public Opinion Weighs In

In response, Mr. Piccolo’s lawyers argued that Disney’s argument that the terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right ever to prosecute a wrongful death case against any Disney affiliate or subsidiary in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+ “border[] on the surreal” and “is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.” The court of public opinion swiftly sided with Mr. Piccolo and skewered Disney for its attempt to bind Mr. Piccolo to arbitration, a private legal process viewed as disadvantaging plaintiffs.

Disney listened and agreed to waive the arbitration provision. But the public backlash remains. While Disney is not the first company to attempt to steer lawsuits from consumers into arbitration—and they very well may have had strong legal support for their arguments—to an average consumer, it may be a challenge for a company built on bringing smiles and happiness to its consumers.