Beanie Bo (talk | contribs)
eula roofie
Banana (talk | contribs)
Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:


===EULA wrongful-death case (''2023'')===
===EULA wrongful-death case (''2023'')===
In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=02 Aug 2024 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>.
In a wrongful-death lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks & Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. after his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from a severe allergic reaction at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs on 5 October 2023. The lawsuit accused the restaurant and Disney of negligence in accommodating her food allergy, which contributed to her death.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Piccolo |first=Jeffrey J. |date=2024-08-02 |title=AUGUST 2ND RESPONSE |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250820191622/https://consumerrights.wiki/images/9/9d/AUGUST_2ND_RESPONSE.pdf |archive-date=20 Aug 2025}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Treisman |first=Rachel |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240821192924/https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney |archive-date=21 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=NPR}}</ref>


In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[Forced Arbitration|arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:
In May 2024, Disney attempted to have the case dismissed from court and sent to [[forced arbitration]], citing two separate [[End-user license agreement|user agreements]]:


# The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]
#The [[Disney+]] user agreement Piccolo accepted in 2019 when signing up for a free trial to Disney's streaming service on his [[wikipedia:PlayStation|PlayStation]]
# Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023
#Terms accepted when purchasing (ultimately unused) Epcot tickets through the My Disney Experience app in September 2023


This is an example of a EULA roofie, where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Tangsuan had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, she was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed her even though the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.
This is an example of an [[EULA roofie]], where Disney attempted to use terms buried within a streaming-service agreement to deny a consumer's right to sue over an unrelated wrongful-death case at a restaurant. Disney argued that because Tangsuan had clicked "Agree & Continue" when signing up for the Disney+ streaming service, she was bound by an arbitration clause for any legal claims against the company or its affiliates. This, they argued, included the food served by a restaurant on their premises that killed her even though the issue was unrelated to the streaming service.


Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>
Disney said that the reason for trying to send the case to arbitration was that the restaurant "is neither owned nor operated by Disney" and that they were defending themselves against inclusion in the lawsuit.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Valinsky |first=Jordan |date=14 Aug 2024 |title=Disney wants wrongful death suit thrown out because widower bought an Epcot ticket and had Disney+ |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815002807/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/14/business/disney-plus-wrongful-death-lawsuit/index.html |archive-date=15 Aug 2024 |access-date=13 Jul 2025 |website=CNN}}</ref>