A tragic event at a Disney property has reignited debates over consumer rights and corporate accountability.
The case involves the death of a doctor from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant, bringing into question the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, New York Post reported.
In October 2023, Kanokporn Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor from New York, dined at Raglan Road, an Irish pub located in Disney Springs. The restaurant was promoted on Disney's website as offering allergen-free food options. Despite multiple assurances from her server that her meal would be free of nuts and dairy, Tangsuan experienced a severe allergic reaction shortly after eating.
About 45 minutes following her meal, Tangsuan, while shopping, began to struggle with breathing, subsequently collapsing. She was rushed to the hospital, where she later died due to anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction. The medical examiner confirmed that her reaction was triggered by high levels of dairy and nut proteins in her system.
After Tangsuan's death, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, sued Disney, raising concerns about allergen safety in restaurants linked to major brands. Although Disney claims Raglan Road is not directly operated by them, its location in Disney Springs suggests a reasonable association.
Disney's defense involves an arbitration agreement Piccolo agreed to in 2019 when he signed up for Disney+. Disney argues that this agreement mandates resolving disputes through arbitration, excluding small claims.
The arbitration clause on the first page of the Disney+ subscriber agreement has sparked controversy. Disney's use of this clause to dismiss a lawsuit related to a physical incident at its property has raised concerns about the fairness of such agreements.
John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, criticizes modern consumer agreements for favoring corporations over consumers. "The consumer is presented with this contract and doesn’t have an opportunity to negotiate the terms. It’s yes or no," Davisson remarked.
Davisson noted the challenge consumers face in fully understanding the numerous digital agreements they accept daily, raising ethical concerns about enforcing these contracts in unrelated situations, like physical incidents at a company's property.
Disney’s written motion emphasized the mandatory arbitration outlined in the subscriber agreement, asserting it as standard and legally binding. In contrast, Piccolo’s legal team disputes the agreement's relevance to a case involving severe health and safety breaches unrelated to streaming services.
This lawsuit has broader implications for digital contracts and their application to real-world risks, such as severe allergies. It highlights potential mismatches between digital agreement terms and consumer expectations during physical brand interactions.
As the case advances, it will set important precedents for consumer rights and corporate responsibilities, particularly regarding the extent of digital agreements when safety is at stake. Kanokporn Tangsuan's death underscores the need for clearer guidelines on digital contracts and stringent allergen controls in food services. This legal battle could impact millions of consumers and companies.
