Disney Drops Arbitration Defense, Agrees to Face Wrongful Death Lawsuit in Court

```html

In a significant reversal, Disney has decided to abandon its previously controversial defense in a wrongful death lawsuit, opting to face the matter in court rather than pushing it to arbitration. This move comes after public outcry and legal pressure surrounding its attempt to use a fine print clause in its Disney+ free trial to prevent the lawsuit from progressing.

The case was filed following the tragic death of Kanokporn Tangsuan, a dDecor from NYU, who dined with her husband Jeffrey Piccolo at a restaurant in Disney Springs last Decober. Tangsuan, who suffered from food-induced anaphylaxis after consuming a meal that allegedly contained dangerous levels of dairy and nuts, died after the meal despite believing it was allergen-free. Piccolo filed a $50,000 lawsuit in February against Disney and the restaurant, seeking damages for medical expenses, funeral costs, and emotional distress.

Initially, Disney argued that the case could not proceed because Piccolo had signed an arbitration clause when subscribing to Disney+ and purchasing tickets to its theme parks, which required all disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. This defense sparked widespread criticism, with many questioning its fairness, especially in a case involving a death. Legal experts and the public alike expressed outrage at the company's attempt to avoid court proceedings through what many considered an unjust contractual loophole.

Under mounting pressure, Disney has now reversed its stance, announcing that it will allow the case to proceed in court. Josh D’Amaro, Chairman of Disney Experiences, stated that the company would approach the situation with sensitivity, acknowledging the importance of "humanity" in such tragic circumstances. D’Amaro assured that Disney would work to resolve the matter as quickly as possible and expressed empathy for Piccolo’s family.

This move marks a departure from Disney's earlier legal defense, where it relied heavily on the enforceability of its arbitration clause. Critics had accused Disney of stretching contract law too far in an effort to avoid accountability for a serious incident. The clause in Disney's terms and conditions stipulated that all disputes must be resolved through binding arbitration, a common practice in many consumer agreements. However, its application in cases involving significant harm, such as this one, has raised questions about fairness and transparency.

A 2017 Deloitte study revealed that 91% of people agree to legal terms without reading them, highlighting a deeper concern about the fairness and transparency of these agreements. Critics argue that such clauses are often inserted to shield companies from liability in cases of severe injury or loss of life.

As the case moves forward to trial, Brian Denney, Piccolo’s attorney, has vowed to continue fighting for justice for his client. The outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent for how companies craft and enforce arbitration clauses, especially in situations involving egregious harm or loss.

```