Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.

But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.