Please note that all submissions to the site are subject to the wiki's licence, CC 4.0 BY-SA, as found here
Disney Wrongful Death Lawsuit
❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub
Notice: This Article Requires Expansion
This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Issues may include:
- This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
- This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
- More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
- The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
- The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content
How You Can Help:
- Add documented examples with verifiable sources
- Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
- Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
- Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
- Flesh out the article with relevant information
This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.
The EPCOT Death Lawsuit and Disney's Arbitration Clause
In a wrongful death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts after his wife died from a severe allergic reaction at a restaurant in Disney's EPCOT theme park. The lawsuit claims Disney’s negligence in managing food allergens contributed to her death.[1] However, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed and sent to arbitration, citing the Disney+ user agreement signed by Piccolo in 2019 when he subscribed for a one-month free trial. This agreement includes a clause requiring arbitration for disputes with the company. Disney said that the restaurant is neither owned nor operated by them and that they were merely defending themselves against inclusion in this lawsuit.
Disney argued that, because Piccolo had subscribed to Disney+ (even for a free trial), he was bound by the arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company, regardless of whether the issue was related to Disney+. This sparked significant backlash, particularly as over 150 million Disney+ subscribers could similarly be barred from suing Disney over serious issues like wrongful death due to such arbitration clauses. In response to the criticism, Disney ultimately withdrew its motion and allowed the case to continue in court.[2]
