Well they definitely kept their core principles of collecting data without consent in any case.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

I know that story. It’s a lot more nuanced than that.

Thing is, Disney barely had anything to do with the restaurant itself (they’re basically the restaurant’s landowner). And the only thing on which they could attack Disney was to point that the restaurant had a description on Disney’s website… which is part of Disney online services, and subject to their terms of services.

So yeah, grasping at a clause from an old Disney+ subscription is bullshit, but the claim honestly did not make a lot of sense to begin with. The restaurant itself should have been sued to hell, even more so because apparently they reinstated they were allergy compliant several times when asked.

https://youtu.be/hiDr6-Z72XU

According to Legal Eagle’s video, Honey could be pocketing affiliate link money from creators that had never even anything to do with them.

It’s installed on viewer’s side, so it makes sense.

I’d also say there are probably limits to what you can enforce arbitration for, especially if you outright lied to your customers, but I am not American and I have no idea how irredeemably fucked up your customer protection laws are.

I’ll take the guy that says “Welcome to Corneria”. He may not have much to say, but he sounds more sincere at least.