[tsimionescu]

It's also important to note that Disney is saying that the plaintiff bought the Disneyland tickets through this Disney+ account, and that the purchase agreement re-iterated the general Disney+ terms as well. So the connection isn't "he happened to be a subscriber of Disney's streaming service" as the original article makes it sound. It's "he clicked agree on these terms when he bought access to Disneyland, where the restaurant was".

[seba_dos1]

The article states that tickets haven't been used. That's not where the restaurant was.

[tsimionescu]

You're right, I only looked at Disney's filing and didn't understand that the tickets are just as unrelated as the streaming service...