Skip to main content
Clear icon
59º

‘Fatally flawed:’ Disney+ subscription threatens lawsuit after woman dies during Florida trip

Kanokporn Tangsuan died following visit to Disney Springs

ORLANDO, Fla. – Nearly one year after a doctor died following a meal at an Irish restaurant at Disney Springs, Disney is now trying to dodge a wrongful death lawsuit by pointing to the widower’s Disney+ subscription.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The incident occurred in October 2023, when the doctor — Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42 — along with her husband and her mother-in-law ate at Raglan Road in the Disney Springs shopping center.

At the time, Tangsuan and her husband told the waiter that she had a severe allergy to dairy and nuts, and the staff reassured them that their food could be made without the allergens, a complaint shows.

Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant (2021) (Disney Springs)

As a result, Tangsuan reportedly ordered the following items from the menu:

  • “Sure I’m Frittered”
  • “Scallop Forest”
  • “This Shepherd Went Vegan”
  • “Onion Rings”

According to the lawsuit, Tangsuan asked the waiter several more times to make sure the food was allergen-free, but when the food came out, some of it didn’t have the “allergen-free flags” in them. The waiter guaranteed, however, that there were no allergens in the meals, the suit states.

After finishing her meal and leaving, Tangsuan continued shopping at Disney Springs. About 45 minutes later, she suffered a severe allergic reaction to the food while entering the nearby Planet Hollywood, the complaint explains.

She was taken to a hospital, but she ultimately died.

Months later, Tangsuan’s husband filed a lawsuit against Raglan Road and Disney, accusing both businesses of negligence in his wife’s death. He is seeking well over $50,000 in damages.

WHAT’S GOING ON NOW?

Court records released this month show that Disney’s attorneys filed a motion in June that Tangsuan’s husband must arbitrate his claims instead of going to court.

According to the records, the husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, reportedly agreed to arbitrate any dispute against Disney when he signed up for a free trial of Disney+ on his PlayStation in 2019. The arbitration agreement was listed in the terms and conditions of his Disney+ trial.

In addition, Piccolo used Disney’s website to purchase Epcot tickets before his wife died, which also acted as an agreement to arbitration, the motion argues.

“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause. The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’.”

Disney Motion

But Piccolo’s attorneys responded to that motion, calling the argument “fatally flawed.” The reasons given were as follows:

  1. Disney didn’t initially raise arbitration as an affirmative defense when filing its Answer.
  2. Piccolo signing up for a free trial of Disney+ or buying Epcot tickets wouldn’t necessarily bind Tangsuan’s estate to an arbitration agreement.
  3. Disney’s motion is based on the “incredible argument” that anyone who signs up for a Disney+ account will have forever waived the right to a jury trial for themselves or any future estate to which they’re associated, regardless of how far removed the wrongful death lawsuit might be from the streaming service.
  4. The Disney+ terms of agreement would only bind Piccolo to arbitration regarding issues involving the streaming service — not other Disney entities.
  5. The Disney+ registration page didn’t expressly reference or link to the Disney Terms of Use, which is what the arbitration agreement falls under.
  6. The arbitration agreement is invalid because the arbitration clauses Disney relies on are “unconscionable.”

A hearing has been scheduled for Disney’s motion in county court in Orlando on Oct. 2.

News 6 has reached out to Disney representatives for a statement on the ongoing litigation and received the following response:

“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

Disney Spokesperson