US3 min(s) read
Published 10:28 21 Apr 2026 GMT
A man who was suing The Walt Disney Company for $50,000 over his wife’s death had his case voluntarily dismissed on February 27, 2026, according to News12. While Disney initially sought to have the case moved to arbitration based on terms linked to a Disney+ free trial, the lawsuit was ultimately dropped by the plaintiff, Jeffrey J. Piccolo.
In 2024, Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts following the heartbreaking death of his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan. She died after suffering a severe allergic reaction after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub on October 5, 2023 — a restaurant located in the Disney resort in Florida.
The lawsuit claimed the couple was assured that allergen-free options would be available upon request. However, Dr Tangsuan later suffered fatal anaphylaxis that same evening.
At the time, Disney moved to have the case dismissed, arguing that Piccolo previously agreed to terms and conditions tied to a Disney+ free trial - a loophole that requires disputes to be handled outside court through arbitration.
In a statement, Disney said: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief.”
They added: “Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
The company also stressed that its “position in no way affects any wrongful death or other claims they may have against the restaurant”, describing Raglan Road as an “independently owned restaurant” and characterizing their relationship as one of “landlord and tenant”.
Court filings demonstrated that Disney’s lawyers had asked for the case to be resolved via arbitration instead of going before a jury. They argued that when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ free trial on a PlayStation in 2019, and later purchased tickets to EPCOT in 2023, he accepted terms stating disputes could not be taken to court.
Their filing stated: “The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration’.”
In essence, Disney argued that by agreeing to those terms, Piccolo waived his right to pursue legal action in court.
However, his legal team strongly pushed back, and called the argument “preposterous” and “inane”, and said Disney’s attempt to force arbitration “borders on the surreal”.
They argued the company’s stance was “based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial”.
Piccolo’s lawyers also pointed out that when he signed up for Disney+ and bought theme park tickets, he was acting as an individual, whereas in this case, he was pursuing the case on behalf of his late wife’s estate.
As reported by BBC News, in 2024, Disney waived its initial demand for arbitration in the case. As a result, the case moved forward with legal proceedings, and it was ultimately voluntarily dismissed by Piccolo.
