Man's Free Disney+ Trial Now a Headache After Wife's Death

A widower suing the Walt Disney Co. over his wife's death in a restaurant at one of the company's Florida entertainment complexes has discovered there's a wrench in his complaint—all because he took advantage years earlier of a free trial of the Disney+ streaming service.

• Death: Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor from New York, suffered a serious allergic reaction and died at a local hospital about 45 minutes after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub, in the Disney Springs dining and entertainment complex. She was allergic to dairy and nuts, but the complaint filed by spouse Jeffrey Piccolo says they'd chosen to dine at that eatery because it claimed on the Disney site it had "allergen-free food," per the AP. The suit also notes that Tangsuan informed her server multiple times that she had severe food allergies and had been promised it was safe to eat there. Per the complaint, a medical examiner listed her cause of death in October 2023 as "anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system."

• A hiccup: Where Piccolo's wrongful-death suit got derailed, according to Disney, is when he signed up for a free Disney+ account in 2019, for which he had to sign a subscriber contract agreeing to out-of-court arbitration for any disputes with the company, with rare exceptions. Disney says Piccolo agreed to the same when he bought tickets online last year to Disney's EPCOT park.
• Piccolo's argument: Attorneys for the New York man say greenlighting a Disney+ trial isn't the same as signing a contract with Disney's parks. They add that even if Piccolo had signed such a contract, his wife wouldn't have had anything to do with it, as she didn't sign anything herself.
• Disney's take: The company says in a statement that it's "deeply saddened" over Tangsuan's death, but it adds it doesn't own or operate the Irish-themed pub—it only serves as a landlord of sorts. "We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff's attorney's attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant," Disney notes.
• Expert take: USA Today notes that such an arbitration contract—which consumers often sign off on simply by pressing an "I agree" button, without fully reading all the fine print—is "a common legal tactic to avoid class-action lawsuits and large damages awards." Those well versed in this tactic say there's not a lot that consumers can currently do to fight it once they put down their John Hancock. "The Supreme Court has, time and again, treated these arbitration provisions as binding," University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew tells the paper. "It doesn't matter if it's in fine, teeny-tiny print."

(More Disney stories.)