4 ms·
It's also important to note that Disney is saying that the plaintiff bought the Disneyland tickets through this Disney+ account, and that the purchase agreement
by tsimionescu 2y ago
It's also important to note that Disney is saying that the plaintiff bought the Disneyland tickets through this Disney+ account, and that the purchase agreement re-iterated the general Disney+ terms as well. So the connection isn't "he happened to be a subscriber of Disney's streaming service" as the original article makes it sound. It's "he clicked agree on these terms when he bought access to Disneyland, where the restaurant was".
- seba_dos1 2y agoThe article states that tickets haven't been used. That's not where the restaurant was.
- tsimionescu 2y agoYou're right, I only looked at Disney's filing and didn't understand that the tickets are just as unrelated as the streaming service...