That was something Disney Lawyers claimed, but was never actually agreed/enforced.
Disney backed down. They still believe they have that right, and no court has ever said they didn’t, but the bad publicity was too much for them in this case. They’ll wait until there’s a case that doesn’t get that kind of publicity before they try to establish that precedent.
The fact the family can’t sue. They absolutely can (edit: in my opinion).
Disney Lawyers believe they can’t ( edit: in their opinion). But wether or not they can is up to a judge in this case. And not up to Disney.
So saying they can’t is false until there is actual clarity.
Disney backed down. They still believe they have that right, and no court has ever said they didn’t, but the bad publicity was too much for them in this case. They’ll wait until there’s a case that doesn’t get that kind of publicity before they try to establish that precedent.
They can believe all they want. Unless it’s ruled and a precedent is set, the statement is false.
I hope people stop believing they have that kind of power, but decide not to do it from the goodness of their heart or bad publicity.
I should hope the actual law still has more relevance than a ToS.
They believe that the users agreed to a contract that specifies that in any dealings with Disney they’ve agreed to binding arbitration.
What’s the “false statement” there?
The fact the family can’t sue. They absolutely can (edit: in my opinion). Disney Lawyers believe they can’t ( edit: in their opinion). But wether or not they can is up to a judge in this case. And not up to Disney.
So saying they can’t is false until there is actual clarity.
Edit: that is my opinion of course