As far as I can tell, the main target in the case is the restaurant. Disney feels they shouldn't be a part of the case because the restaurants are independently

As far as I can tell, the main target in the case is the restaurant. Disney feels they shouldn't be a part of the case because the restaurants are independently owned/run, which is arguable. AFAICT they're pulling this to avoid a legal precedent being set regarding them being liable for any of this. I just can't see any way a judge goes "yeah this years old free trial agreement also applies here". That's like if I worked in the IT dept at a hospital with an arbitration agreement, then years later after I moved to a different job I was unable to sue a different hospital owned by the same private equity group for malpractice because of that agreement.