In a recent legal battle, AT&T and Disney have come under scrutiny for their use of what many believe to be unjust contract clauses that prevent consumers from seeking justice through the courts. These clauses, buried deep within the fine print of contracts, essentially strip away the average American’s right to sue, forcing them instead into arbitration—a process that overwhelmingly favors large corporations. This legal tactic, often referred to as an “arbitration clause,” is being used by companies to sidestep accountability and avoid the costly and public process of a lawsuit.
The case of Jeffrey Piccolo, who is suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for the wrongful death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, highlights the power imbalance created by these arbitration clauses. Piccolo’s lawsuit, seeking damages exceeding $50,000 under Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, faces dismissal due to a contract clause linked to his sign-up for a Disney+ free trial in 2019. The clause mandates that all disputes must be settled through arbitration, effectively barring Piccolo from pursuing his case in a court of law.
Piccolo’s lawyer, Brian Denney, has called Disney’s legal argument “preposterous,” criticizing the notion that a free trial subscription could waive a customer’s right to a jury trial against any Disney affiliate or subsidiary. “This tactic is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience,” Denney stated in court documents, arguing that Disney is attempting to shield itself from accountability in a wrongful death case that has nothing to do with the Disney+ service.
Disney’s attempt to use an arbitration clause to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit is part of a broader trend where corporations exploit complex legal jargon to limit consumer rights. These clauses are often hidden within the terms and conditions of various services, leaving consumers unaware of the rights they are relinquishing. Without the financial resources or legal expertise to challenge these contracts, most consumers find themselves powerless against corporate giants.
The injustice of these arbitration clauses is further compounded by the financial barriers they create. Litigation against large corporations is prohibitively expensive for the average American, making it nearly impossible for individuals to seek justice. Corporations are well aware of this imbalance and use it to their advantage, embedding these clauses in contracts to deter legal action and avoid accountability.
The case involving Piccolo and Disney began in October 2023, when Piccolo, his wife, and his mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, Florida. Despite informing the restaurant of Tangsuan’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, and receiving assurances that her food would be allergen-free, she suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining there. The lawsuit alleges that the restaurant’s negligence led to Tangsuan’s death, yet Disney is using the arbitration clause to dismiss the case.
This tactic by Disney is not an isolated incident. AT&T and other major corporations routinely employ similar strategies, hiding arbitration clauses in their contracts to avoid lawsuits. These clauses not only prevent consumers from seeking justice in court but also ensure that any disputes are resolved in a private arbitration setting, where the rules are often skewed in favor of the corporation.
As corporations continue to use these legal loopholes to protect themselves from accountability, the need for reform in contract law becomes increasingly urgent. Consumers are being buried under legal jargon and forced into agreements that strip away their rights. Without change, the average American will remain at the mercy of corporate giants, unable to challenge the injustices they face.
The case of Jeffrey Piccolo and the death of his wife is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by these contract clauses. As the legal battle unfolds, it may serve as a catalyst for broader discussions on the need to protect consumer rights and ensure that individuals have a fair chance to seek justice against powerful corporations.
