Disney wrongful death lawsuit over allergy highlights danger of fine print

The wrongful death lawsuit against Disney highlights the implications of arbitration clauses in consumer agreements. Jeffrey Piccolo is suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts following the death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs. Disney argues that Piccolo agreed to arbitrate disputes when he signed up for Disney+, thus seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. Piccolo's legal team contends that he never signed an agreement with the park and that any terms would not apply to his wife. The case raises concerns about consumers unknowingly waiving their legal rights through fine print in contracts. Legal experts note that arbitration clauses are often enforced by courts, limiting consumers' ability to pursue claims. The lawsuit claims that Tangsuan was assured her meal was allergen-free, but she later experienced anaphylaxis due to undisclosed allergens. Critics of mandatory arbitration argue it favors corporations and restricts consumer access to justice. While some lawmakers have attempted to address these issues, significant reforms remain elusive. Experts suggest that consumers should advocate for legislative changes to improve their rights in such agreements.

- Disney is facing a wrongful death lawsuit related to an allergic reaction incident.

- The company claims arbitration clauses in its agreements protect it from litigation.

- Legal experts warn that consumers often unknowingly waive rights by agreeing to fine print.

- The case underscores the challenges consumers face in seeking justice against corporations.

- Advocacy for legislative reform is suggested as a way to improve consumer rights.