The argument in the legal papers is that access to the park (and access to the restaurant website that claimed that the food that caused the lethal anafilaxis contained no allergens) was purchased through the Disney+ account. They also claim that the ticket purchase terms of use explicitly say that they are in addition to the Disney+ account terms of use.
I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant.
This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.
I have no idea of this is true, but if it is, it might be more likely than it appears at first for this motion to succeed. At least there is some direct connection between the Disney+ account and the restaurant, it's not just that the husband happens to be Disney+ subscriber who wen to this restaurant.
This is quite horrible precedent though if physical injuries of this kind can be covered by a checkbox you clicked without reading on a website somewhere two years before.