In the realm of legal battles, strategy is everything. However, when Disney recently attempted to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit by leveraging a Disney+ subscription agreement, they ventured into a territory where legal acumen met public relations disaster. This case study serves as a cautionary tale for trial lawyers on how a legal strategy, while legally defensible, can ignite a public relations nightmare.
The Case Overview
Disney is currently facing a wrongful death lawsuit from Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant. Disney’s initial defense was to invoke arbitration clauses from Piccolo’s Disney+ trial subscription that he signed up for in 2019, arguing that this precluded him from suing them in court. This move, while potentially sound from a contractual standpoint, overlooked the psychological impact on public perception. The details of Disney’s legal strategy flooded social media and news outlets alike, causing a deluge of negative public opinion and fueling a backlash against the company.
Psychological Principles at Play
According to research, humans instinctively value and seek fairness in social exchanges (Haidt & Joseph 2004; Starmans et al., 2017). Thus, Disney’s attempt to use an unrelated service agreement to block a wrongful death suit was quickly perceived as a gross violation of fair behavior. This type of perception can alienate not just the involved parties but also the wider public, who can easily be shifted into viewing such tactics as corporate overreach (Haidt, 2001). Typically, Disney might have benefited from a positive halo effect, where their reputation in entertainment imbues a primarily positive perception. However, by employing what is seen as an underhanded legal tactic, this halo flipped to a horn effect, tarnishing their image and position in the case in the public’s perception (Seehusen et al., 2023).
PR Implications for Legal Strategies
While lawyers must focus on legal merits, overlooking how strategies play out in the court of public opinion can be detrimental. The backlash Disney faced was not just about the legal argument but the insensitivity it projected. Legal victories can turn into Pyrrhic ones if they damage the brand’s reputation. Research in consumer psychology shows that brand trust, once lost, is hard to regain (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003). Typically, these schisms are due to interpersonal communication failures rather than the final outcome of the interaction. For trial lawyers, this means advising clients not just on legal outcomes but on potential brand impact as well. Incorporating a psychological understanding of empathy can guide lawyers in crafting strategies that appear innately moral and humane. Disney could have initially approached this case with a strategy that acknowledged the tragedy, perhaps offering mediation or a settlement, which would have been more in line with their public image of family friendliness.
Avoiding the Pitfalls of a PR Nightmare
- Stakeholder Analysis: Before deploying a legal strategy, analyze how different stakeholders might react. This includes not just analyzing the courts but also the public, the shareholders, and the media.
- Integrate PR and Legal Teams: Have PR experts work alongside legal teams to forecast reactions and craft messages that align legal actions with corporate values.
- Ethical Considerations: Use principles from moral psychology to evaluate if a legal strategy might be seen as ethically dubious. The principle of “do no harm” can be extended to “do not appear to harm unjustly.”
- Transparency: When a strategy might be controversial, transparency about legal processes can mitigate negative perceptions. Explaining why certain legal avenues are being pursued can help humanize the approach.
In conclusion, Disney’s case underscores a vital lesson for trial lawyers: legal strategies must be evaluated not only for their legal robustness but also for their psychological and PR implications. By understanding the principles of psychology, lawyers can better navigate the delicate balance between an effective legal defense and maintaining public goodwill. This holistic approach not only serves the immediate legal objectives but also safeguards the client’s long-term interests in the public eye.
References
Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 440–453.
Haidt J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues. Daedalus. 133. 55-66.
Seehusen, D. A., Kleinheksel, A. J., Huang, H., Harrison, Z., & Ledford, C. J. W. (2023). The Power of One Word to Paint a Halo or a Horn: Demonstrating the Halo Effect in Learner Handover and Subsequent Evaluation. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 98(8), 929–933.
Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behavior, 1(4).
