The commentary “Reject SB 82. Family businesses can’t afford more lawsuit landmines” by Ken Monroe of the Family Business Association appearing August 16, 2025, is wildly inaccurate. “Mom-and-pop businesses” don’t mislead consumers into sweeping arbitration agreements disguised as service subscriptions.

In 2023, when Jeffrey Piccolo and his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub at Walt Disney World, they had no idea it would be their last meal together. Tangsuan suffered a fatal allergic reaction, which Piccolo alleged was due to the restaurant’s negligence in preparing her food and ensuring it was allergen-free, despite her repeated requests.

But his trauma didn’t end there: Adding to the heartbreak of his wife’s untimely death, Piccolo was shocked when Disney attempted to deny him justice by forcing him into arbitration.

Why? Not because he dined at the restaurant where the incident occurred, but because he had signed up for a Disney+ free trial four years earlier.

Similarly, in 2021, in the case of Smith v. Walmart, a family sued Walmart alleging that one of its employees falsely and without evidence accused them of shoplifting. Understandably, they sought accountability for what they described as a humiliating and traumatic experience. But they never got their day in court. Instead, they were forced into private arbitration.

Why? Because months earlier, one family member signed a contract to drive for Walmart’s grocery delivery service. 

No one imagines that when they suffer an unimaginable tragedy, justice could be out of reach because of a long-forgotten and completely unrelated subscription. The absurdity of these situations made one thing clear: This shouldn’t happen to anyone.

That’s not arbitration done right. That’s legal overreach. And that’s exactly why we need SB 82.

Let’s be clear: SB 82 is not an attack on arbitration. This bill doesn’t stand in the way of two parties who knowingly agree to settle a dispute by arbitration. It’s about restoring fairness and common sense when consumers sign agreements with companies, and making sure they aren’t unknowingly signing away their rights forever for disputes completely unrelated to the original contract.

Right now, some companies hide what are called “infinite arbitration clauses” deep within consumer agreements. These clauses force customers, and sometimes even their family members, into arbitration for any future dispute with the company, no matter how unrelated, simply because of a one-time click, sign-up or purchase. 

These “infinite” arbitration clauses are overwhelmingly used by large corporations to prevent people from ever getting their day in court. Most mom-and-pop shops don’t have sweeping subscription agreements. 

No one imagines that when they suffer an unimaginable tragedy, justice could be out of reach because of a long-forgotten and completely unrelated subscription. The absurdity of these situations made one thing clear: This shouldn’t happen to anyone.

That’s not arbitration done right. That’s legal overreach. And that’s exactly why we need SB 82.

Let’s be clear: SB 82 is not an attack on arbitration. This bill doesn’t stand in the way of two parties who knowingly agree to settle a dispute by arbitration. It’s about restoring fairness and common sense when consumers sign agreements with companies, and making sure they aren’t unknowingly signing away their rights forever for disputes completely unrelated to the original contract.

Right now, some companies hide what are called “infinite arbitration clauses” deep within consumer agreements. These clauses force customers, and sometimes even their family members, into arbitration for any future dispute with the company, no matter how unrelated, simply because of a one-time click, sign-up or purchase. 

These “infinite” arbitration clauses are overwhelmingly used by large corporations to prevent people from ever getting their day in court. Most mom-and-pop shops don’t have sweeping subscription agreements. 

Let’s also dispense with the claim that this bill is a “lawsuit trap.” No, it’s about protecting people from traps. A trap is being told, after a serious injury or even a loved one’s death, that you can’t go to court because you clicked “I agree” to stream “Frozen” years ago.

That’s what clarity looks like. And if that sounds like it should already be the law, that’s because it should be.

Published in the Orange County Register: Here