We have a new example of how an aggressive legal strategy can become a PR nightmare for a company because, outside the legal world, the approach is seen as boneheaded. This example is particularly stark given that the company in question has (had?) a feel-good reputation. We speak of Disney, which has now wisely done a U-turn on its blunder.

In October 2023, New York married couple Jeffrey Piccolo and Kanokporn Tangsuan were in Florida. While at Disney Springs, the shopping and entertainment center that’s part of the Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando, they dined in a restaurant called Raglan Road (pictured).

One reason they chose that eatery was the Disney website advertised it as having “allergen-free food.” Tangsuan had a severe allergy to nuts and dairy. The couple confirmed several times with the waiter that the food would be allergen-free.

Medical Examiner

Less than an hour after leaving the restaurant, Tangsuan, while shopping alone at the complex, entered a Planet Hollywood and collapsed with difficult breathing. She was transported to a hospital where she died. The medical examiner said the cause was “anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”

In February, now-widower Piccolo filed a wrongful-death suit against Disney in Orange County, Florida, court. In May, Disney argued Piccolo couldn’t sue in court because, when he signed up for a one-month trial subscription to the Disney+ streaming service in 2019, he agreed to settle any disputes with the company in arbitration.

No, we’re serious — that’s what the multibillion-dollar company said. Concerning a customer who died. To be fair, Disney also argued that Piccolo agreed to arbitration when he set up an account to buy tickets to its Epcot theme park for during the trip in question. But the streaming bit got more public attention.

‘Disney Villains’

And that’s the point. You could maybe say the Epcot theory made some sense, though not really. But the throw-in-the-kitchen-sink legal argument about Disney+ caused the PR horror. Once the public got wind of it, there was outrage. Here’s a headline on Inside the Magic, a website that covers Disney news: “Furious Public Backlash After Disney World Tries to Sweep Park Death Out of Sight.” Writer and activist Jillian C. York posted on X: “Disney villains are real.”

Disney got the message. On Aug. 20, in an unusual move, it withdrew its motion to force arbitration and said it would defend itself in court. It’s astonishing that, in this day and age, companies don’t realize an aggressive legal strategy may be met with fury. It’s called a crisis.

When that cocky approach is being discussed, communicators need to be in the room to evaluate how Jane and Joe Public might react — to ask simple questions such as, “Are you crazy?” The lawyers will say the public doesn’t matter. They’re wrong (as this case shows).

Media Outlets

The discussion at Disney seems to have gone to the top of Space Mountain. To supplement its bare-bones notice withdrawing its motion, the company released a statement to individual media outlets, including the Associated Press. The communiqué was from Josh D’Amaro, who oversees the theme-park division.

“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations,” it said. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.”

Not a great statement, but amen. A hearing had been scheduled on Disney’s motion for Oct. 2. That’s been canceled.

Photo Credit: Raglan Road via Facebook

Sign up for our free weekly newsletter on crisis communications. Each week we highlight a crisis story in the news or a survey or study with an eye toward the type of best practices and strategies you can put to work each day. Click here to subscribe.