You're viewing a single thread.
It was never Disneys restaurant. Y'all should get your facts straight. It's an independently owned restaurant leased on Disney Land. Y'all thirsty for blood lololol.
They could have avoided the bad pr but y'all running wild with imaginary stories and propaganda.
I was never Disneys restaurant.
Then Disney should have argued that, not this "you had a trial for Disney+ so you can't sue us for murder" nonsense.
This exactly
Also with it being on the Disney property and advertised by Disney parks their association with the restaurant is definitely deeply intertwined.
The plaintiff doesn't say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant's menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
The TOS that says "if we kill your spouse you cannot sue us"?
The TOS doesn't say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can't waive that anyway.
What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.