• perishthethought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’d be really curious to hear if the court accepts Disney’s argument. (F*** them if they do)

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        None of that should even matter.

        Disney is claiming the one line in the terms and conditions of a free trial of Disney+ years ago means the consumer must abide by those terms in perpetuity for anything Disney related. Even things completely unrelated to Disney+.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            My point is the agreement was for an entirely unrelated product. A restaurant is in no way associated with the Disney+ streaming service. No one would expect the terms and conditions from a streaming service to apply to a sit down restaurant.

            I’d even say that while they’re both under the Disney brand, they almost certainly are separate companies, further differentiating their products.