If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users--and they do--then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.
How is babby formed?
No it's not. There's no bail, for example, and no plea bargaining in civil cases; jail time isn't on the table, the district attorney isn't involved, the standard of evidence is lower, and the rules of procedure are different.
First comes the discovery phase where both sides exchange evidence and the court settles any evidentiary questions. This phase can frequently take longer than the trial itself.
This is a civil case.
Be, is, are, was, am, were, being, been... are all the same word.
When in Vegas sell light bulbs.
The TOS doesn't say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can't waive that anyway.
What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.
The plaintiff doesn't say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant's menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.
Today, the US is withholding billions of dollars in Afghan assets, cutting off a crucial economic lifeline for the people of Afghanistan.
What assets are they talking about here?
I feel attacked, yet also acknowledged.