Comment by SilasX

That's not true. They're obligated to make good faith arguments consistent with the legal profession's ethics code, that don't deliberately waste the court's time with rabbit holes, not just throw forth everything that might stick because they duped the right judge. (This came up IIRC when Trump's lawyers made such arguments to dispute the 2020 election results.)

"Disney+'s terms of services categorically shields us from all legal liability" is not a good-faith argument, and, if accepted generally, would create a world no one seriously wants to live in, including those lawyers.

This is especially true when Disney had an actually reasonable, good-faith argument in this case, that the law can't pass on liability for everything a restaurant does wrong, just because you recommend it, especially when the regulation and management of that restaurant is totally out of your control. This would create a horrible world where no one can make a recommendation without thereby becoming responsible for everything that goes wrong at that establishment later.