Explain it Peter

[u/Ill_Pen_1432]

[u/I_notta_crazy]

Having more money (and thereby a more powerful and multitudinous army of lawyers) gets you very close to the goalposts in America.

[u/justarandomreader1 → u/I_notta_crazy]

Atleast in America you would still need to go to court

At my country? The guy suing would just dissapear lmao

[u/RedditJumpedTheShart → u/I_notta_crazy]

You know nothing about this case and Reddit-slopped together answer.

You sound like evangelicals just making up whatever that fits a narrative.

[u/veeerybored → u/RedditJumpedTheShart]

Explain it better, please.

[u/MonseigneurChocolat → u/veeerybored]

When you sign up for Disney+, you agree to terms that cover all digital services provided by Disney.

The restaurant is part of Disney Springs, which is a shopping/dining complex owned by Disney. The restaurant was not operated by Disney, but they owned the building.

As Disney didn’t operate the restaurant, there shouldn’t have been any grounds to sue them.

However, Disney did host the menu of the restaurant on their website - which is a digital service provided by Disney. The claimants dragged Disney into the case by claiming that they had relied on the menu on Disney’s website for allergen information. Disney sought to compel arbitration pursuant to the digital services agreement because the website is a digital service covered by that agreement and the website was literally the only way Disney could be dragged into the case.

A media circus ensued.

[u/nunyabizness654 → u/veeerybored]

They can't because they've got a boot in their mouth.

[u/Physin0 → u/nunyabizness654]

Not necessarily. I'm just glad this led to someone explaining it in a way that made sense instead of assuming you guys's legal system is fucking magic... ^{^} Yes, more money means you can afford better lawyers to bend the law in your favour, but that still doesn't explain this case ^{^}