How many times have you scrolled to the bottom of a terms and conditions list and clicked accept instinctively?
I’m sure many of you have never actually taken the time to read every paragraph of the lengthy document, myself included. However, a new case involving a tragic death and the Walt Disney Company has drawn attention to the terms and agreements documents many of us skip over.
Last October at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant at Walt Disney World Florida’s Disney Springs, Kanokporn Tangsuan was served food containing dairy and nuts after being reassured by staff members that her meal was allergen free.
On their website, the restaurant advertises that they are open to “allergy friendly requests” and that a manager can discuss an “Allergy Menu” with each guest.
Four months later, Tangsuan’s husband, Jeffery Piccolo, filed a lawsuit against Disney. Piccolo is seeking damages exceeding $50,000 USD as well as other costs covered such as medical expenses and loss of income.
Piccolo’s lawyers want to take the case to court, however the magical conglomerate initially stated that any disputes would have to be settled out of court due to an arbitration clause, or a clause in a contract which ensures you agree to settle any dispute out of court, that was hidden in the terms and conditions of a Disney Plus free trial that Piccolo signed up for in 2019.
Essentially, Piccolo signed away his right to take his case to court because he did not study the fine print of a three-month free trial for a streaming service he signed up for five years ago.
This situation is obviously a sad example of corporate greed. While Disney has recently agreed to allow the case to go to court regardless of the clause, it is still cruel and almost dystopian that the company, worth billions of dollars, would even try to enforce their sneaky terms and conditions when somebody’s life was taken away by a mistake they made.
However, I believe this case has shed light on an issue many of us have looked over in the past – arbitration clauses and the fact that there is no real regulation on what companies can hide in their fine print.
We now know that Disney has included, and will try to enforce, an arbitration clause in the terms and conditions of their streaming service, ESPN accounts and when purchasing theme park tickets on the Disney website.
In the case of Disney, their arbitration clause is put in place so those who have accepted their terms and conditions cannot exercise their right to fair trial as they have already agreed to settle out of court should a dispute arise.
Disney is not the only corporation that has embedded an arbitration clause in their fine print.
Companies like Airbnb and Walmart mention the clause in their terms and conditions. Apple payments do as well, and Amazon has recently ended theirs.
According to the Government of Canada, a contract is binding when three of the following contributions are true; (1) a contract is made, (2) there is an offer and acceptance and (3) both parties receive something for their promises.
Terms and conditions follow each of those contributions, therefore whatever is written in the fine print is legally binding once we click accept.
There is no doubt that these companies know their terms and conditions are being overlooked. They must be aware that the average person does not sit down and dissect every word of legalese when making an account they very well may never use again. But I do not think it is unfair to say that people’s rights should not be taken away due to this.
Yes, companies are allowed to put what they want in their terms and conditions. That is the reason they have people sign them.
However, if they want to avoid any shock that may arise once the contents of their terms and conditions are discovered or inform their consumers of them in a way that does not require a law degree, a summarization of each term and condition could be included.
That way consumers can skim the lengthy document while still having the option to read in depth if they choose.
Piccolo’s lawsuit has been scheduled to be discussed by judges on Oct. 2.
After learning more about them, I probably will continue to not read the terms and conditions and neither will you.
However, it will be interesting to see what precedent Piccolo’s case sets in regard to the regulation of terms and conditions.
