*The opinions expressed within the content are solely the author’s and do not reflect the website’s or its affiliates’ opinions and beliefs.
Ever since Walt Disney founded Disney in 1923, countless people across the globe have enjoyed its unforgettable stories, fueled by childhood memories and magic that have captured the hearts of millions for decades. Yet, as time has passed, certain aspects of the company have come under harsh scrutiny.
One of these issues involving Disney’s conscience is the latest Disney+ lawsuit. Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, a physician with NYU Langone’s office in Carle Place, New York, had a severe allergic reaction to nuts and dairy products in a Disney restaurant, in which the waiter had assured them her food was prepared without allergens only an hour prior. However, in little time after finishing their dinner, Tangsuan had difficulty breathing, collapsed and died at a nearby hospital, “despite self-administering an EpiPen,” according to the lawsuit. Disney attempted to get the lawsuit tossed by asking the court to move the dispute to arbitration, their argument being that Piccolo, Tangsuan’s husband, had allegedly entered a subscriber agreement when signing up for a Disney+ trial years prior, requiring users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. Even when Disney withdrew the claim that Piccolo could not sue the company over his wife due to signing up for Disney+, this case left many questioning Disney’s values, particularly regarding consumer safety and the ethical qualities of their choices.
In the lawsuit, Disney’s decision to withdraw its decision to dismiss the lawsuit and allow it to proceed to court shows that the company took the case seriously, acknowledging the emotional and legal complications involved. If Disney values the safety and well-being of its consumers, this legal action might force them to improve communication about allergens in their products, making changes that ultimately benefit everyone.
However, Tangsuan’s death could have been entirely avoided if only Disney’s system for ensuring allergen-free dining was better and more carefully operated. Ethically, Disney’s failure to take responsibility for the safety of its guests in its restaurants is very concerning. A company with Disney’s resources and history should know how to prioritize consumer safety, especially for vulnerable individuals with known allergies. Furthermore, refuting this case by saying that the patient’s family had a Disney+ subscription is illogical. Whether or not they had subscribed to Disney+ doesn’t address the actual problem: the health and safety of the person involved. Instead of taking full responsibility for the tragedy, Disney’s first reaction was to issue a claim stating that the company would not take any action concerning the lawsuit, failing to ensure a safe environment for all its customers.
In conclusion, the near-dismissal of the Disney+ lawsuit suggests that Disney’s values may be centered around maintaining profits and a perfect reputation rather than genuinely protecting and respecting the audience it serves.
