this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024

826 points (100.0% liked)

196

16239 readers

1950 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

greembow@lemmy.blahaj.zone

moss@lemmy.blahaj.zone

moss@lemmy.world

queue@beehaw.org

funky_rodent@lemmy.blahaj.zone

PeachyMcPeachface@lemmy.blahaj.zone

threegnomes@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

A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world

qaz@lemmy.dbzer0.com

qaz@sh.itjust.works

qaz@lemmy.sdf.org

826

Terms of Rule (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 month ago by alexiascylding@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month 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?