This case study examines the legal and ethical implications of Disney’s enforcement of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, specifically in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo. The lawsuit arose after Piccolo’s wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney-affiliated restaurant, Raglan Road Irish Pub, despite assurances of allergen-free food. Disney invoked an arbitration clause embedded in its Disney+ Terms of Service, arguing that Piccolo had waived his right to sue by subscribing to the streaming platform in 2019. This legal maneuver raised concerns over the expansive use of arbitration clauses beyond their original context, limiting consumer access to litigation. The paper explores the historical rise of arbitration clauses, their legal foundation under the Federal Arbitration Act, and their controversial role in corporate liability shielding. The public and media backlash against Disney’s response pressured the company to drop its arbitration motion, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in court. This case highlights broader issues regarding consumer awareness, contract fairness, and corporate accountability. By analyzing legal precedents, public sentiment, and corporate ethics, this study highlights the tension between business interests and consumer rights in the modern digital landscape.