Disney's asserted right to arbitration was based mostly on the terms for the ticket the patron had just purchased... and then a foolish lawyer mentioned the patron had also agreed to Disney+ terms years ago, thinking that would tack on a tiny little extra bit of evidence that they were bound to arbitration.
Naturally, the media picks up the absurdly stupid Disney+ part of the argument and runs with that so nobody ever hears about the ticket purchase terms again.
I doubt the purchase did a sufficient job of ensuring that the terms were understood, so it's quite plausible it shouldn't be enforceable, but it's not blatantly stupid in principle to require agreement to such terms to enter an amusement park and have them apply to the immediate consequences of that entry... whereas of course it is blatantly stupid in principle to imagine that a Disney+ trial's terms bind someone for their rest of their life in unrelated dealings with different properties owned by the same company.