Law Council of Australia

International Law Section

Tangled in terms: Disney+ clause, a wrongful death lawsuit and bad PR

Co-authored by Daphne Fong and Damian Sturzaker, 18 September 2024

Next time you are about to click “ACCEPT” to some online T&Cs pause for a moment and think about the implications.

In late 2023, a woman experienced a fatal allergic reaction at a restaurant at Disney World in Florida. Her husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney on behalf of her estate for a sum in excess of $50,000 plus costs.

Disney moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the husband signed up for a one-month free Disney+ trial in 2019. The Disney+ terms and conditions stipulate that any disputes must be resolved through arbitration. Disney claims that he re-accepted the terms when he bought tickets to the Disney World theme park in 2023.

Following widespread public criticism, Disney decided to drop the controversial motion.

Should the matter have proceeded to hearing, the U.S court may have found that the wrongful death claim was so far removed from the Disney contracts that it was beyond the scope of the clause. Notably, it was the husband and not his late wife who signed up for the subscription. The court would likely have considered whether an individual would reasonably believe that signing up for a Disney+ subscription would have an impact on their right to bring the claim occurring in the restaurant.

Even if the court decided that the wrongful death claim falls within the ambit of the T&Cs, it could still have decided not to enforce the clause on the basis that it is unconscionable or against public policy considerations.

It would have been interesting to see how the court approached this case and whether the T&Cs, which many often neglect to read, would have been upheld. The decision to drop the motion demonstrates the importance of reputational considerations for businesses. In a statement sent to CNN, the chairman of Disney Experiences commented, “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… as such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Despite the decision to drop the motion, the clauses remain in Disney’s T&Cs including on Disney+ and park entrance tickets, meaning the risk remains for those who may find themselves in a similar position.

In Australia, we have had some terrible incidents at theme parks including the Dream World Thunder Rapids accident resulting in four deaths. Typically, our theme parks T&Cs don’t contain arbitration clauses and Australian courts tend to be more reluctant to refer consumer claims to arbitration. However, if an Australian injured themselves at a U.S theme park they would likely face the same arguments being used by Disney in this case. 

Disclaimer: This communication presents a spotlight on the issue relating to the Disney+ wrongful death lawsuit. However, it does not constitute legal advice and is the opinion of the author. It does not represent the position of the ILS or the Law Council of Australia. Please consult wider legal commentary to inform yourself on the subject.

Last Updated on 14/03/2025

Share

Tags

Most recent items in International Law Section


Trending Items in International Law Section