@mcc it’s seemingly impossible to find the actual legal filings, but my understanding from reading about yesterday was that:

1. it’s a separately owned/operated restaurant situated in a mall owned by disney
2. the claim is that disney is liable because they republished the restaurant’s menu on their website or because they’re the landlord

I find either contention to be ridiculous, but my impression was that disney’s lawyers argued that, if that’s grounds to hold disney liable, then the disney+ terms should also apply

(I find that to be nonsense too, but it’s moot because the threshold question is about whether the claim against disney is valid)