• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

Disney tries to silence grieving husband and learns not all news is good news

by August 26, 2024
written by August 26, 2024

Disney, one of the world’s most iconic entertainment companies, recently found itself entangled in a legal controversy that has shone a spotlight on the perils of overreaching legal tactics. The case involves Jeffrey Piccolo, who is suing Disney and the operators of a Disney Springs restaurant for the wrongful death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, following a severe allergic reaction.  

In a surprising twist, Disney initially sought to push the case into arbitration, citing a clause from the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Piccolo had briefly subscribed to in 2019. After a public backlash, Disney withdrew its claim, allowing the case to proceed in court. However, this episode illustrates a broader danger for Disney: the Streisand effect. 

The Streisand effect refers to a phenomenon where attempts to hide or suppress information only lead to greater public attention. It originated from a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand tried to prevent aerial photographs of her home from being published. Her legal efforts, rather than keeping the photos under wraps, brought widespread public and media attention to the images.  

In Disney’s case, the attempt to move the lawsuit into private arbitration, away from public scrutiny, backfired in a similar way. Instead of avoiding negative publicity, the company found itself at the center of a growing controversy, as the public reacted strongly against what seemed like an attempt to sidestep accountability. The public’s reaction underscored the risks of aggressive legal tactics, particularly when they conflict with a company’s carefully crafted public image.’ 

Legal experts quickly criticized Disney’s approach. The idea that signing up for a streaming service could prevent someone from pursuing a wrongful death claim seemed not only legally tenuous but also ethically questionable. Disney was seen as pushing the envelope of contract law by arguing that agreeing to Disney+ terms meant accepting arbitration for any dispute involving the company, no matter how unrelated. This legal maneuver smacked of corporate overreach and sparked significant public backlash. 

The outcry was swift, with many viewing Disney’s actions as an attempt to prevent a grieving husband from having his day in court. The perception that a media giant was trying to shield itself from accountability by exploiting an unrelated arbitration clause did not sit well with the public.  

In response to the backlash, Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Parks, Experiences, and Products, issued a statement acknowledging the sensitive nature of the situation and announced that Disney would no longer pursue arbitration. Instead, the company agreed to allow the case to proceed in court, hoping to expedite a resolution for the grieving family. 

While this reversal may have been intended to stem the negative publicity, the damage had already been done. The incident not only generated bad press for Disney but also raised broader concerns about corporate arbitration practices.  

The case highlighted the potential for companies to misuse arbitration clauses in ways that may not serve the best interests of consumers or, in this case, victims of tragic circumstances. By trying to keep the matter out of the public eye, Disney inadvertently drew even more attention to it, underscoring the risks of the Streisand effect. 

For Disney, whose brand is built on wholesomeness and family values, the optics of this legal maneuver were particularly damaging. The disconnect between the image Disney projects and the reality of its legal strategies could have long-term implications for its reputation. This case serves as a reminder that in the digital age, where information spreads rapidly and public sentiment can turn on a dime, the line between protecting business interests and maintaining a positive public image is increasingly thin. 

The lessons from this incident extend beyond Disney. For any corporation, the balance between legal prudence and public perception is crucial. Disney’s initial push for arbitration came across as an attempt to evade responsibility rather than a genuine effort to resolve the dispute fairly. As Disney moves forward, it must be mindful of the broader implications of its legal strategies and adopt a more transparent approach to maintain the trust of its audience.   

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Bronfman’s Paramount bid could keep Shari Redstone involved at the company
next post
Sports gambling takes a toll on Americans’ checkbooks, research shows

related articles

DAVID MARCUS: RFK Jr is right, nobody knows...

September 5, 2025

Trump trashes Nadler on heels of Dem’s House...

September 5, 2025

DOJ task force finds ‘numerous instances’ of anti-Christian...

September 5, 2025

House Republicans split with Trump team over ‘very...

September 5, 2025

‘Delusional’: Oversight Republicans slam ex-Biden aide for lashing...

September 5, 2025

Venezuelan military jets buzz US Navy ship in...

September 5, 2025

Trump’s midterm convention is the seismic shift that...

September 5, 2025

Republican doctors clash with RFK Jr over vaccines...

September 5, 2025

Trump admin urges Supreme Court to allow president...

September 5, 2025

Hegseth vows to rebuild military deterrence so enemies...

September 5, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • ‘All the options’: GOP eyes cutting August recess to move dozens of Trump nominees stalled by Dems

    July 21, 2025
  • Trump made millions on guitars, Bibles and watches with his name on them, disclosure reveals

    June 16, 2025
  • Influential leader of Canada’s Ontario province seeks Trump, Musk meeting: US ‘needs us like we need them’

    January 12, 2025
  • Israel eyes Iran nuke sites amid reports Trump mulls moves to block Tehran atomic program

    December 13, 2024
  • Trump bucks Biden’s ‘don’t’ doctrine on world stage, hits adversaries with ‘all hell to pay’ deadline

    December 3, 2024

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 3

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 4

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (5,924)
  • Investing (634)
  • Stock (921)

Latest Posts

  • Former Hamas hostage Naama Levy breaks silence in first message since her release

    January 28, 2025
  • A US judge partially blocked Trump’s election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?

    May 2, 2025
  • Vance says Harris ‘bent the knee to the Hamas caucus’ by choosing Walz over Shapiro

    August 7, 2024

Recent Posts

  • MAGA loyalists take aim at GOP senator as key Trump defense post sparks controversy: ‘Why the opposition?’

    February 18, 2025
  • Harris to oversee certification of her defeat to Trump in presidential election: ‘Sacred obligation’

    January 6, 2025
  • What is the Electoral College? How does it work?

    November 3, 2024

Editor’s Pick

  • Pence laments pro-life principles ‘fell short’ at RNC, thanks delegates for ‘noble’ fight

    July 23, 2024
  • President Trump gave me back my life after 471 days of Hamas captivity — please save the remaining hostages

    April 30, 2025
  • Trump warns of ‘serious consequences’ if Elon Musk funds Democrats

    June 7, 2025
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock