Kanokporn Tangsuan died after eating at a restaurant on Disney-owned property. In a painful reminder to read the fine print, lawyers for the Walt Disney Company claimed the family had no right to sue.
Tangsuan and two family members ate at Raglan Road restaurant in Orlando, Florida, in October 2023. Disney Parks and Resort owns Disney Springs, the dining, shopping, and entertainment complex they visited. That means the company is Raglan Road’s landlord. Disney’s website described Raglan Road’s food as “allergen-free.”
But about 45 minutes after eating broccoli, corn fritters, onion rings, and scallops, Tangsuan began struggling to breathe. She used her EpiPen but died at a hospital. The coroner listed her cause of death as “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut.”
The family says Tangsuan informed the server numerous times that she had a severe nut and dairy allergy. The waiter allegedly “guaranteed” the food was allergen-free. Jeffrey Piccolo, Tangsuan’s husband, took legal action. He began to explore filing a lawsuit against Disney.
Yet Disney’s lawyers argued Piccolo had no case. Why? He’d signed up for a free one-month Disney+ streaming trial in 2019.
Disney says that by subscribing to its streaming service, Piccolo agreed to settle any suit against Disney out of court: no judge, no jury. The company filed a motion to dismiss the case in May 2024.
Piccolo’s lawyer calls it “absurd” to think that every Disney+ subscriber—more than 150 million people—waives all rights to sue the company and its partners forever, for any type of negligence or harm.
Three months later, after public protest, Disney withdrew its dismissal motion.
The ongoing case raises concerns about electronic agreements. Most consumers glibly sign contracts on their devices—for streaming services, apps, phones, internet, and more.
Law professor Jeff Sovern says that by clicking “I accept,” people may be signing away rights, including to their day in court.
Another law professor, Christine Bartholomew, says the law usually sides with the wording of the contract. That’s true “even if the consumer didn’t read the terms. Even if the consumer didn’t understand the consequences.”
In the past, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has supported disclosure terms that protect companies from huge lawsuits. But John Davisson of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says FTC officials now often admit it’s “literally impossible for consumers to read and interpret and fully understand all of the contracts” they encounter.
He says a consumer “really doesn’t have an opportunity to negotiate the terms.” So “it’s yes or no” if you want the service.
Both Davisson and Bartholomew say consumers can fight the problem by electing lawmakers who care about these issues.
Piccolo continues to “pursue justice on behalf of his beloved wife” according to lawyer Brian Denney—and hopes to raise awareness about real challenges for people with food allergies.
When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers. — Proverbs 21:15
Why? The story serves as both warning and reminder: to act with discernment in business—as provider and consumer—and to respond with compassion toward those with physical or other struggles.
