this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
834 points (100.0% liked)

196

16542 readers
2011 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone
moss@lemmy.world
queue@beehaw.org
funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone
PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone
greembow@lemmy.world
remotelove@lemmy.ca
Roflmasterbigpimp@feddit.de
qaz@lemmy.world
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemm.ee
qaz@lemmy.blahaj.zone
qaz@lemmy.ca
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
qaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Qaz@lemmy.ml
qaz@sh.itjust.works
qaz@lemmy.sdf.org
834
Terms of Rule (i.imgur.com)
submitted 3 months ago by alexiascylding@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

From the article:

"Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”

I don't have anything to defend or oppose that argument, but if it's true, why would disney have to be a part of the lawsuit at all? Isn't it then just a terrible preemptive move to refer to terms of the Disney+ membership?