In recent years, venerable companies have turned woke and the entire legal system has squandered its credibility.
Still, few could have expected something like this.
According to the legal news-focused outlet Law & Crime, woke Disney’s lawyers have argued that widower Jeffrey Piccolo’s wrongful death lawsuit should revert to third-party arbitration rather than a jury trial because Piccolo created an account on the Disney+ streaming service in 2019 — an argument that prompted one social media user to blast Disney as “an evil company.”
Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, Piccolo’s late wife, died in October 2023 after allegedly consuming nuts and dairy at a Disney World restaurant.
Piccolo has claimed that he, his mother and Tangsuan chose to eat at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs only because the park said the staff there followed “proper safeguards to protect patrons” such as Tangsuan, who suffered from severe allergies to nuts and dairy.
The widower’s lawsuit also alleged that Raglan Road “advertises” to patrons with food allergies. “Plaintiff relied upon these representations in selecting Disney Springs/Raglan Road for dinner,” the lawsuit read.
Tragically, Tangsuan died that same night. The medical examiner confirmed that she died from anaphylaxis and that she had “very high” levels of nut and dairy allergens in her system.
Those apparently undisputed facts, however, did not deter Disney’s lawyers from advancing a novel and diabolical argument.
“Before eating at Raglan Road Piccolo created a Disney account. And purchased park tickets with that account before dining at Raglan Road,” the company’s loathsome filing read.
Are you done with Disney?
“In November 2019, Piccolo initially created a Disney account through the Disney+ website. Piccolo completed the registration webform by providing personal information, including his email address, and created a password. Before registering the account, Piccolo had to select ‘Agree & Continue.’ Immediately above was a disclosure notifying Piccolo that ‘[b]y clicking Agree & Continue, you agree to our Subscriber Agreement,’” the filing continued.
If you thought you had seen a company sink as low as possible, you had not yet seen this.
As awful as it sounds, Disney’s lawyers argued that the “Subscriber Agreement” on a Disney+ account, which no sane person reads in its entirely, and which every reasonable person understands as covering actual Disney+ entertainment services, deprives subscribers of a jury trial in cases like Piccolo’s, which obviously have nothing to do with the Disney+ streaming service.
“Piccolo agreed to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator,” Disney’s motion red. “The Disney Terms delegate to the arbitrator — not to a court—’exclusive authority’ to resolve ‘any dispute relating to’ the arbitration clause’s ‘interpretation, applicability or enforceability’ and whether ‘any part’ is ‘void or voidable.’ It is hard to imagine a more expansive delegation clause.”
One can scarcely believe that human beings with actual souls wrote those words and then submitted them to a court. But apparently they did.
“[G]uys, I’m starting to think disney might be a bit of an evil company,” comic and video game writer Daniel Barnes wrote on the social media platform X.
guys, I’m starting to think disney might be a bit of an evil company https://t.co/dz0R1YT4Tw
— ✪ daniel barnes ✪ (@Danny8bit) August 14, 2024
Indeed, according to Piccolo’s attorneys, Disney’s argument “borders on the absurd.”
Elsewhere in their filing, those same attorneys wrote that “this argument borders on the surreal.”
Either way, the incredulous attorneys understated the case, for Disney’s argument crossed both of those borders.
Considering all we have seen in recent years, however, how confident are you that the judge will not side with Disney? If you would bet anything of value on it, then you have more confidence than I do.
