Disney Tried To Get Out Of Allergy Death Lawsuit Based On Disney+ Terms & Conditions
It hasn't been a great run of public relations for the Walt Disney Company.
Disney just canceled its $180 million Star Wars series, "The Acolyte," after dismal ratings created another financial debacle.
READ: Woke Star Wars Series Cancelled After Money Debacle
But that may not be their biggest PR disaster this month. That comes as a result of one of the most bizarre legal defenses in recent memory.
Disney is currently facing a lawsuit from the husband of a woman, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died of an allergic reaction after eating at Raglan Road, a restaurant at Disney Springs near Walt Disney World. Tangsuan's husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, named Disney as a party in the lawsuit. And the company defended itself in writing by saying that Piccolo had waived the right to sue the company because he'd once signed up for a month-long Disney+ trial. No, seriously.
His lawyer, Brian Denney, had argued that it was "absurd" to say that anyone who's ever signed up for Disney+ at any point had waived their right to sue Disney for any reason, indefinitely. But that's what Disney suggested. Until the public heard about it.
NEW YORK, NY - SEPTEMBER 24: Disney CEO Robert Iger visits FOX Business Network's "Markets Now" at FOX Studios on September 24, 2013 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
Disney Drops Insane Legal Defense
In a statement late Monday night, Disney Parks & Resorts chairman Josh D'Amaro said that the company was dropping their assertion to "put humanity" first.
"At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations," D'Amaro said in the 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."
No kidding.
It's reasonable to question whether Disney should be responsible for the tragic death of Dr. Tangsuan, considering the restaurant is not Disney-owned or operated. But the company's website did reportedly list Raglan Road as having "allergen free food," which influenced the couple's decision to eat there.
Still, using obscure legal language buried in Disney+ terms and conditions that seemingly indemnifies the company from any and all lawsuits in perpetuity is inexcusable. And the company's rightly been pilloried for going in that direction. But it still raises the all important question: what did they think was going to happen?