Disney recently found itself in the midst of significant public backlash due to the legal argument it advanced in the wrongful death case of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan. Dr. Tangsuan tragically passed away from anaphylaxis after dining at a restaurant in Disney Springs. The crux of the legal issue was Disney’s attempt to use an arbitration clause to prevent Tangsuan’s family from bringing a wrongful death lawsuit to court.
The controversial argument was made by lawyers from the Biglaw firm White & Case. They posited that because Tangsuan’s husband had downloaded a free trial of Disney’s streaming service, Disney+, he was barred from pursuing the lawsuit in court due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the streaming service’s terms and services. Furthermore, it was contended that purchasing a park ticket to EPCOT also carried a similar arbitration agreement. This line of defense quickly drew negative attention, particularly as Disney has been recognized as an allergy-friendly brand.
Faced with mounting public criticism, Disney decided to retract this argument. Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, stated that Disney would waive its right to arbitration and allow the matter to proceed in court. D’Amaro emphasized, “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.” A detailed report on this development can be found on CNN.
This significant reversal is likely influenced by how severely the Disney brand was criticized in the public domain. Social media platforms were ablaze with negative commentary highlighting the insensitivity of Disney’s initial legal strategy. As further outlined in the original article from Above the Law, it remains a striking example of how legal strategies can impact public relations, especially for high-profile corporations.