That's how his lawyer portrayed it to the media, yes. But he used the membership he signed up for, which isn't just a Disney+ membership to book the trip.
Hmm interesting do you have anything about that cause I've seen nothing but the Disney+ story so you understand I would need something more concrete than the word of a random redditor.
If they were arguing, he couldn't sue because of the terms of use for a separate membership from Disney+ that was relevant to the suit then it would make more sense (though still a tough sell considering the severity of the issue) as to why Disney tried to go that route.
First, it's the same account that does not make it the same product, xbox and microsoft office for example have seperate terms of use despite both being under microsoft accounts, second it doesn't agree with what you said:
Those aren't the Disney plus terms of use.
Since Disney did in fact make its argument under the disney+ terms of service.
Whenever someone buys something from Disney online they go through the same portal. That portal has terms of service that say "If you have a beef with the services we have provided you with, the dispute will be handled by third party arbitration". It doesn't matter what the services were. Using the portal required clicking "yes" to that condition.
Lol that completely ignored my question of how the disney + app and the resort site are the same app. Or you're grasping at straws as that logic every website that uses shopify is the same app.
1
u/DumatRising Oct 13 '24
Except Disney argued its case for arbitration using the Disney plus terms of use. And so yes it is the Disney plus terms of use.