Disney has withdrawn its claim that a man could not sue it over the death of his wife because of terms he signed up to in a free trial of Disney+.

Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of a restaurant after his wife died in 2023 from a severe allergic reaction following a meal at Disney World, in Florida.

Disney had argued the case should instead go to arbitration because of a clause in the terms and conditions of its Disney+ streaming service, which Mr Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019.

But, following a backlash, it has decided the matter can now be heard in court.

“We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” Disney’s Josh D’Amaro told the BBC in a statement.

“As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Arbitration means the dispute is overseen by a neutral third party who is not a judge. It is usually a quicker, cheaper and less public process than a court case.

Mr Piccolo and his wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, ate a meal at Raglan Road, an Ireland-themed pub located at Disney Springs in Orlando.

He alleges that the restaurant did not take enough care over his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite being repeatedly told about them.

She died in hospital later that day.

According to the legal filing, her death was confirmed by a medical examiner “as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”

Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for a sum in excess of $50,000 (£38,400), in addition to other damages relating to suffering, loss of income, and medical and legal costs.

Lawyers for Mr Piccolo had sad Disney’s argument that the lawsuit should not be heard in court “borders on the surreal.” They are yet to respond to its U-turn.

It is not known whether Disney would have been successful had a judge ruled on its arbitration claim.

Disney argued that the legal circumstances surrounding the case were unique.

But legal experts told the BBC they were “pushing the envelope of contract law”.

“Disney’s argument that accepting their terms and conditions for one product covers all interactions with that company is novel and potentially far-reaching,” Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, who are not involved in the proceedings, said.

Meanwhile, Jibreel Tramboo, barrister at Church Court Chambers, said the terms in the Disney+ trial were a “weak argument for Disney to rely on”.

Disney says it is in the process of submitting a filing to the court to withdraw its call for arbitration.