Disney World is arguing a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant at the theme park.

However, Disney argues its terms of use, which Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019, means they have to settle out of court.

Representatives for Disney and Jeffrey Piccolo have been contacted for comment.

Mr Piccolo alleges that the restaurant at Disney World – in Orlando, Florida – that he and his wife dined at did not take enough care over her severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite being repeatedly told about them.

Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan died in hospital later that day, 5 October 2023.

According to the legal filing, her death was confirmed by a medical examiner “as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”

He is suing Disney for a sum in excess of $50,000 plus legal costs.

Disney wants the case in the courts to be halted, and for the dispute to be resolved out of court, in a process called arbitration.

The entertainment company argues it cannot be taken to court because, in its terms of use, it says users agree to settle any disputes with the company via arbitration.

It says Mr Piccolo agreed to these terms of use when he signed up to a one month free trial of its streaming service, Disney+, in 2019.

Disney adds that Mr Piccolo accepted these terms again when using his Disney account to buy tickets for the theme park in 2023.

Mr Piccolo’s lawyers call Disney’s arguments “preposterous” and “inane”.

They say Disney’s case “is 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”.

The argument that this can be extended to wrongful death or personal injury claims “borders on the surreal,” according to the legal filing.

They also argue that Mr Piccolo agreed to the Disney terms of use for himself, whereas he is now acting on behalf of his deceased wife, who never agreed to the terms.

“Disney is pushing the envelope of contract law,” says Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, who are not involved in the proceedings.

“The courts will have to consider, on balance, if the arbitration clause in a contract for a streaming service can really be applied to as serious an allegation of wrongful death through negligence at a theme park,” he says.

He adds: “Disney’s argument that accepting their terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with that company is novel and potentially far reaching.”

Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chambers, says the terms in the Disney+ trial are a “weak argument for Disney to rely on”.

However, he says, the clause in the ticket purchase from 2023 may be a stronger case, “as there is a similar arbitration clause”.

“That may permit Disney to stay the case for arbitration,” he says, “although there are many other threads that may prevent them going to arbitration given the delicate circumstances in this case.”

Mr Piccolo wants the case to go in front of a jury in a court of law.

Disney’s motion to take the case out of court and decided by arbitration will be heard in front of a Florida judge in October.

Arbitration means the dispute is overseen by a neutral third party who is not a judge.

It is usually a quicker and cheaper process than a court case.

“Disney understandably may want to benefit from the privacy and confidentiality that arbitration brings, rather than having a wrongful death suit heard in public with the associated publicity,” says Jamie Cartwright, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys.