(Photo by Olga Thompson/Walt Disney World Resort via Getty Images)
By now, most everyone has heard about the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died of anaphylaxis after dining at a restaurant in Disney Springs. And… that’s kinda the problem.
The case became national news after lawyers for Disney — from Biglaw shop White & Case — advanced the awful argument that because Tangsuan’s husband downloaded a free trial of Disney+, he was barred from bringing the wrongful death action in court and was instead bound by the mandatory arbitration clause in the terms and services of the streaming service. Even if colorable, that’s a terrible argument for a family brand, which has been touted as allergy friendly, to make. The company also made the less-egregious argument that purchasing a park ticket to EPCOT also carried a similar arbitration agreement.
But the mouse did an abrupt about face. Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, said in a statement the brand was shuttling the arbitration push, “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. 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.” He continued, “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
I’m sure it had nothing to do with how absolutely roasted the Disney brand was getting in the court of public opinion.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @[email protected].
#Disney #Backs #Terrible #Argument #Onslaught #Negative #Publicity
