IANAL but i am wondering if Disney is somehow letting this case go as a backdoor way to legitimize arbitration agreements.

Like, i just can't see Disney not knowing this is the wrong case to push the legitimacy of an arbitration agreement. But if this case somehow legitimized through whachacallit... precedent... that an arbitration agreement, while binding in a primary sense, is not binding for every Disney product, wouldn't Disney (and really every company that uses binding arbitration as part of using their product) consider that a win?

Because as i understand it, arbitration agreements as a requirement to use a service is still an untested legal grey area. Anything legitimizing them at all would be a win... Right? Againn ianal