The House of Mouse has turned tail. Disney had filed a motion to have a wrongful death lawsuit against them dismissed. Their reasoning was as curious as it was infuriating. The plaintiff, widower Jeffrey Piccolo, sued Disney after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died of anaphylaxis as a result of eating contaminated food at a Disney Springs restaurant, despite having asked the wait staff exhaustively to confirm there would be no nuts or dairy in her food. In their recent filing, Disney countered that Piccolo had actually waived all rights to sue them… because he’d signed the terms and conditions for Disney+, in a buried clause that stipulates issues can only be addressed through arbitration. Needless to say, the legal chicanery was met with swift backlash. So now Disney has filed a notice to withdraw the previous motion, meaning Piccolo can proceed with his lawsuit.

Josh D’Amaro, chairperson of Disney’s theme park division, said in a statement emailed earlier to The Associated Press that the entertainment giant will waive its arbitration rights and allow the suit, brought by the husband of a New York doctor who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs, to proceed in court.

“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” he said in the Monday night statement. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”

Disney had previously argued that Jeffrey Piccolo could not sue the company because he agreed to settle any lawsuits against the company out of court when he signed up for a one-month trial subscription to Disney+ back in 2019.

Brian Denney, Piccolo’s Florida-based lawyer, said Tuesday that his client will continue to “pursue justice on behalf of his beloved wife” and hopes that their ordeal has helped raise awareness of the challenges people with food allergies face.

He also noted that others seeking to take Disney to court risk facing a similar legal challenge as the arbitration provision remains in many of the company’s terms and conditions.

“The right to a jury trial as set forth in the Seventh Amendment is a bedrock of our judicial system and should be protected and preserved,” Denney wrote in an email. “Attempts by corporations like Disney to avoid jury trials should be looked at with skepticism.”

In a response filed earlier this month, Denney had argued that it was “absurd” to believe that the more than 150 million subscribers to Disney+ have waived all rights to sue the company and its affiliates in perpetuity because of language “buried” in the fine print.

The company, in its bid to have the lawsuit dismissed, argued Piccolo had not agreed just to the arbitration terms in his Disney+ trial, but also again when he signed up for an account on Disney’s website and app in order to purchase the couple’s tickets for their ill-fated theme park visit.

…Disney, in a follow-up statement to The Associated Press last week, said that it was merely defending itself against Piccolo’s attempt to include the company in his lawsuit against Raglan Road, the Irish pub in Disney Springs where the family dined.

Spokespersons for the restaurant didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment Tuesday. Disney Springs is owned by Disney, which leases some of the spaces in the outdoor dining, shopping and entertainment complex to other companies.

Piccolo’s lawsuit claims the family had decided to eat at Raglan Road in October because it was billed on Disney’s website as having “allergen free food.”

[From AP News]

Score one for the little guy! I mean, the Disney legal team will for sure do their worst in court and/or arbitration, or will attempt the smallest settlement they can get away with. But cynical lil’ ole me honestly didn’t think The Mouse would even deign to make this reversal. Something to look out for long term, is what happens to the “you can watch our cartoons, but only if you sign away your right to sue us,” clause. I’d say the only thing that would force a mega company like Disney to take out such a clause would be the Supreme Court, but well, yeah…

It’s nice to see Piccolo and his lawyer using this case as an opportunity to champion people with food allergies. Piccolo is absolutely right that Raglan Road is touted as an allergen-free option among the dining at Disney World. And don’t you just love how Disney tried to throw the restaurant under the bus? “Don’t sue us, it was the restaurant’s fault!” Yes, the restaurant on Disney’s land, that Disney leases to the restaurant. I bet the deciding factor for who’s at fault will come down to minutia language on the lease between Disney and Raglan Road.

photos via Instagram