As we navigate the digital age, the convenience of streaming services has become a staple in many households, offering a plethora of entertainment options at our fingertips. However, a recent court case involving Disney has raised eyebrows and important questions about the legal implications of subscribing to such services.

In a surprising turn of events, Disney has argued in court that by subscribing to their streaming service, Disney+, a customer may inadvertently give up their rights to sue the company. This argument came to light during a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Kanokpom Tangsguan, tragically passed away after an allergic reaction to a dish at a Disney theme park.


The case, which is set to be heard on October 2 in the county court in Orlando, Florida, has sparked a debate about the enforceability of arbitration clauses in subscriber agreements. Disney contends that when Mr. Piccolo signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019, he agreed to a binding arbitration clause that requires any disputes to be settled outside of court.


The clause in question, highlighted in all capital letters in the Subscriber Agreement, states 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.' Disney's stance is that this clause covers 'all disputes,' including those involving any of its affiliates.


Mr Piccolo's lawyer, Brian Dennery, has responded by calling the notion that over 150 million Disney+ subscribers have waived their right to a jury trial 'absurd' and 'outrageously unreasonable and unfair.' He argues that the case has nothing to do with the streaming platform and that such an agreement should not be enforced by the court.

While Disney expresses deep sadness over the family's loss, it maintains that the Irish pub where the incident occurred was neither owned nor operated by the company, and therefore, the litigation does not affect the plaintiff's claims against the eatery.

This case raises an important question for Australian consumers: Could a similar situation happen here? According to University of Sydney professor Yane Svetiev, an expert in contract law, Australian consumer law provides protections against unfair contract terms. These provisions ensure that if a term is not easily accessible or understandable or if it contains an unfair substantive provision, it would not be enforceable against the consumer.


Professor Svetiev also notes that even if Disney's argument were to succeed in the United States, it would likely have no international implications due to the differences in consumer protection laws, particularly those in Australia and the European Union.

The impact of this case, therefore, may be limited to the specific state of Florida. However, it serves as a stark reminder for consumers to be vigilant when agreeing to the terms and conditions of any service. It's crucial to read and understand the fine print, especially when it comes to clauses that may waive legal rights.

As seniors who may be new to the world of digital subscriptions, it's essential to protect yourselves by being informed. Always take the time to review the terms of service and seek clarification if needed. Remember, your rights as a consumer are paramount, and understanding the agreements you enter into can help safeguard those rights.
We'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Have you ever felt like you've given up rights unknowingly through a subscription service? Share your experiences, and let's discuss how we can stay protected in the digital age.