In short:
Jeffrey Piccolo has claimed his wife Kanokpom Tangsguan's death was due to an allergic reaction to a dish at a Disney theme park.
However, Disney has argued his streaming subscription means he must settle the suit through arbitration.
What's next?
A hearing is scheduled for October 2 in the county court in Orlando, Florida to hear Disney's motion in the case.
Disney has challenged a wrongful death lawsuit after a 42-year-old New York doctor died in one of its theme parks — arguing signing up for its streaming service means giving up the right to sue it.
The family of Kanokpom Tangsguan allege that an allergic reaction to a dish at a Disney theme park led to her death last year.
The media giant asked a court in the US state of Florida to throw out the case brought by Jeffrey Piccolo, Ms Tangsguan's husband, because he had agreed to not sue the company when he signed up for a Disney+ subscription.
Mr Piccolo is seeking more than $75,525 in damages in the lawsuit.
What happened, according to the widower
Mr Piccolo filed this lawsuit in February, setting out his claims.
It stated his wife had eaten at the Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs, in October 2023.
Ms Tangsuan ordered the vegan fritter, scallops, onion rings and a vegan shepherd's pie.
But before the food was served, Mr Piccolo had informed the waitstaff about his wife's severe allergy to nuts and dairy products, and had required "allergen-free food," the lawsuit said.
The waiter had "guaranteed" that the food was allergen-free despite some items not having "allergen-free flags".
Ms Tangsuan later died in hospital despite self-administering an EpiPen during the allergic reaction.
A medical examiner determined she had died because of "anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system," the lawsuit said.
What are the arguments in the case?
Disney has said in court Mr Piccolo had agreed to settle any lawsuits against the company outside of court, and through an arbitration process after he signed up for a one-month trial of Disney+ in 2019.
"The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause," the company wrote in its motion.
"The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that 'Any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.'"
Mr Piccolo's lawyer, Brian Dennery, filed his response arguing that it was "absurd" to believe the more than 150 million Disney+ subscribers had forgone their rights to sue the company, despite their case not having anything to do with the streaming platform.
"The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair," Mr Dennery wrote.
"This court should not enforce such an agreement."
However, Disney has argued it was "immaterial" if Mr Piccolo reviewed the service terms.
It also said the arbitration condition "covers 'all disputes' including 'disputes involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates'."
Disney said it was "deeply saddened" by the family's loss but stressed the Irish pub was neither owned nor operated by the company.
The company's stance in the litigation doesn't affect the plaintiff's claims against the eatery, it added.
"We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff's attorney's attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant," the company wrote in a statement.
Could this happen in Australia?
University of Sydney professor Yane Svetiev specialises in contract law.
He said that given this would be a consumer transaction it is unlikely that Disney could argue the person had the opportunity to read the terms on their streaming service.
"In our consumer law, there are unfair contract terms provisions where if a term of the contract is deemed to be unfair, either because it wasn't so easy for the consumer to access or understand the term, or because the term itself has a very unfair, substantive provision, then it wouldn't be enforceable against the consumer."
He gave examples of other legal protections for consumers.
"So that if somehow through the way in which a provider like Disney kind of ensured that the consumer had signed up, not only signed up to this term, not only for the free trial, but for any other engagement with Disney, that would also come into play," he said.
What could be the impact of the case?
Professor Svetiev said even if the case was successful, it would unlikely have implications internationally.
"We have largely adopted the European Union approach to consumer protection. So certainly in Europe, it would have no precedential effect," he said.
He even questioned how significant the case was in the context of the United States, because contract law was state-specific.
"Some [US] states also have consumer protection statutes so even if the case was to be decided in favour of Disney … I wouldn't be too worried about the precedential effect beyond the specific state of Florida in which the case is decided," he said.
ABC/AP