Consume Product

It wasn't a Disney restaurant, the space was leased to a third party. That third party prepared and served the food. Disney is just the landlord.

Granted, "Disney+ Terms" is the biggest chickenshit way to "protect" themselves.

All that matters is what the judge (jury too?) decides in the US. Speculating is superfluous. You can argue for both sides anyway.

> This precedent will allow corporations to legally murder people who signed the agreement for fucking streaming services.

This is a good argument and should be brought up though. Imagine all corporations will put up signs with these jurisdiction-exemptions and then all hell can break loose upon random people unaware that they entered PvP zones where they are ganked by corporate stooges.

Oh, you entered McDonald's to buy some fucking collection of goyslop for insane prices? But a nigger employee happened to chimp out on you, and you agreed to not do anything about it. He will maul your face off, and it doesn't even matter if you run away. The contract with Satan has been already been sealed forever, your bitch soul already belongs to McDonald's and therefore him. You are free game for McDonald's niggers now, and it doesn't matter where you hide.

> Now Disney is claiming that her husband can't sue them because he signed an agreement to their streaming service

This is no longer true. Disney filed to "waive their right" to arbitration after they took a massive PR backlash. You are a few weeks behind on the news.

Disney is still a fucked company ruining IP and encouraging child molesters to be around children, but they did realize they fucked up here.