Disney: Widow can’t sue us for its trial subscription to Disney +

Last year, a woman died after eating food at an Irish pub in Disney Springs, Disney’s shopping and entertainment center in Florida. The woman, who was a doctor by profession, had a severe milk and nut allergy, and she chose that restaurant specifically because it served food without these allergens. Both the restaurant and Disney Springs advertise this specifically.

To the judge

Despite this, the woman died shortly after eating from a severe allergic reaction on the food. Her husband then went to court and sought damages from both the restaurant and Disney of more than $50,000.

But in the case of Disney, the company cannot be brought to court, because the man has taken out a one-month trial subscription to Disney +, the media conglomerate’s streaming service.

Banned from going to court

The company behind Mickey Mouse writing by issuing a trial subscription to Disney + in 2019, the widow agreed to the condition that ‘all disputes’ will be resolved through arbitration, and not through the courts. Arbitration is a way of resolving disputes outside of court.

Disney also says the man agreed to similar terms when he bought tickets for an amusement park through the website in 2023.

Totally unreasonable

“Absurd”, the lawyer says of the widow. According to the husband and his lawyer, it is impossible to read the terms as meaning that he agreed, on behalf of his wife or her estate, to settle the personal injury case through arbitration.

“The notion that the terms a user agrees to when creating a free trial account for Disney+ will forever waive the user’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with a -affiliate or subsidiary of Disney so grossly unreasonable and unfair that it disturbs the legal conscience,” the lawyer wrote.

Therefore the court cannot enforce that agreement, the argument goes.

Disney: ‘Sad, but…’

In a brief statement, Disney said it is “deeply saddened” by the loss and understands the family’s grief. However, Disney says: “Since the restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to implicate us in the lawsuit.” opposite the restaurant.