Do you think the average person even understands the title? People don't care.

They don't. However, if this motion somehow got granted, a lot of people would get a quick and painful lesson in reading contracts/TOS as more companies would add ridiculous things. Frankly, I ALMOST want Disney to be granted this so that we can have a clear indication on how enforceable TOSs really are.

It would truly be a game changer.

It sounds weird. TOS should have some limitations. This sounds akin to "give your soul to us and we're good."

Can you really just put that into a TOS and make it enforcable?

How the hell are we a society then? There's nothing social about it.

What bad press? Think Disneyland isn't going to be packed again soon?

Will people be willing to even test a free trial of Disney+ if it means Disney then has them over a barrel for the rest of their life?

Disney uses an integrated account system now, if you sign up in order to buy park tickets or use the Disney world app you are probably clicking through a similar agreement anyway. And if you were never going to visit Disney in the first place I'm not sure what other control Disney has over you from these terms.

To be clear I don't agree with this motion to dismiss, I just feel that's hyperbolic. If Disney were to win they only "have you over the barrel" as it pertains to your use of Disney products. Which if you're only using Disney+/going to the movies I'm not sure how severe of a dispute you can have against them. And if you're going to the parks it would be unavoidable regardless of subscribing to D+. Though I'm guessing this won't be upheld.

They own a lot. They have 20 property holding companies, and only a few are obviously owned by Disney, not sure if that also carries to the businesses on all of those properties. It is possible someone could be on Disney owned property, and thus caught under the Disney+ agreement, without knowing it.

I also suspect it won’t be upheld, with Disney’s ever growing footprint, some of these mega companies become harder and harder to ignore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_...

Fair enough, I knew they owned a lot of entertainment/media related companies but didn't realize they owned additional properties that weren't explicitly advertised as such.

Though in the case of Disney Springs they actually don't own the restaurant, just the property, so I'm not sure what liability they have regardless of this motion. If Disney technically owns the property but independent operators are involved, Disney isn't really the right party to bring a suit against anyway (though obviously they are large and people tend to file broad lawsuits).

It's a children's entertainment company. Most of their customers can't even read.