3 ms·
BS. If that was the case (Disney doesn't own or operate the restaurant), then that would've been Disney's first motion to the court. But it wasn't. Their initia
by jimt1234 2y ago
BS. If that was the case (Disney doesn't own or operate the restaurant), then that would've been Disney's first motion to the court. But it wasn't. Their initial argument was that the Disney+ EULA binds the dude to arbitration.