Disney seeks dismissal of wrongful death lawsuit citing waiver in Disney+ terms
Disney is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit over a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant by arguing the widower is bound to private arbitration because he once accepted Disney+ streaming terms during a free trial. Commenters question whether such click-through agreements should be allowed to govern unrelated, serious claims like injury or death, and highlight how forced arbitration and expansive terms of service can erode access to courts. The case also raises issues about landlord versus tenant liability and contrasts U.S. contract practices with stricter consumer protections in places like the EU.
Scope of Disney’s Arbitration Argument
- Disney moved to dismiss / stay a wrongful-death suit, arguing that the widower’s 2019 Disney+ free-trial ToS (with an arbitration clause) governs this dispute.
- The clause reportedly covers “all disputes” concerning “Disney Products” and “services in any media format or channel.”
- Many commenters find it absurd that a streaming ToS could govern a later, unrelated physical injury/death; some see it as a potential “test case” on how far ToS can reach.
Facts & Confusion About the Venue
- The death followed an allergen reaction after dining at Raglan Road in Disney Springs, a free-entry mall on Disney property.
- Multiple corrections: Disney Springs is not inside a ticketed park; Raglan Road is run by a separate company (Disney is landlord).
- Disney republishes menus and allows reservations on its own site/app; debate over whether this makes it more than “just a landlord.”
- Archived menu text shows extensive allergen disclaimers; some argue the plaintiff mischaracterized “allergen‑free” claims, others say in-person assurances by staff override boilerplate disclaimers.
Legal Debates: Contracts, Arbitration, and Strategy
- Many argue the arbitration clause should not apply:
- It’s tied to a different product (Disney+ vs a third‑party restaurant).
- It targets the husband, while he sues on behalf of the deceased’s estate.
- It’s unconscionable to waive court access for serious injury/death via a generic clickwrap.
- Comparisons made to EU consumer rules, where such broad clauses would likely be void or limited.
- Others note corporate defendants routinely invoke arbitration to delay and wear down plaintiffs; denial can still yield years of appeals and stays (with examples from California and federal practice).
- A few defenders say Disney’s lawyers are “doing their job” by raising every arguable defense; critics counter this crosses into misrepresentation and abuse of process.
Broader Concerns About ToS and Corporate Power
- Widespread condemnation of pre‑dispute forced arbitration and “fine print” that ordinary consumers cannot meaningfully read or negotiate.
- Fears that if Disney’s theory succeeds, any prior online agreement (Google, Uber, Tesla, etc.) could be used to shield companies from unrelated tort suits.
- Some call for boycotts/canceling Disney+, others are skeptical that consumer backlash will materially hurt Disney.
Allergies, Responsibility, and Risk
- Separate thread on severe food allergies:
- Some argue people with life‑threatening allergies should avoid restaurants entirely; others reject this as unreasonable and blame lax restaurant practices.
- General agreement that kitchens are error‑prone and true “allergen‑free” service is extremely hard, but still a duty when staff explicitly assure safety.