Well I don't see it as clear cut. Disney had Disney brochures talking up these restaurants. I will say, I think their lawyers did also raise this point, and it is a valid point. This is a slippery slope though -- could they just have shell companies operate the rides, the hotels,lease the common areas to another shell company, just have them declare bankruptcy and shift the assets to another shell company any time a lawsuit happens, and effectively just have no liability no matter what happens in the park? On the other hand, it's also not that unusual in a case like this for (in this case) Disney to be sued, then they get to file their own suit to recover damages from the restaurant owner/operator. It's also not uncommon for a judge to agree "You are suing the wrong person" and have them sue the owner/operator directly instead.
The arbitration clause for a 1 month trial of Disney+ applying to going to the Disney resort years later? I do think this is a silly argument and they deserve all the bad PR they get for it. It's good that they dropped it.
Plus, they're doing all this over a request for $50,000? That's low for a accidental death and another reason they are getting (deserved) bad PR. Honestly they should just settle for some amount and be done with it. Then they can recover damages from the restaurant.