For some reason I don't see a reply link on lewisgodowski's comment.
> Couldn't replying to their tweet be considered sending it to Disney?
Disney apparently does "consider" that to be sending it to Disney. Since Twitter doesn't belong to Disney, I don't see how that could have any legal relevance. Twitter has its own terms of service.
If you and I tweet back and forth agreeing that I'll sell you a sandwich for $5, that's a contract. No court is going to hear an argument that I was talking to Twitter and then Twitter was talking to you so it doesn't count. Anyone tweeting @Disney is clearly "sending it to Disney".
Also I think there's a time delay on seeing the reply link on replies to your own comments.
Even ignoring the rest of your logic - replies are different from mentions and can be inferred only by context of the tweet and not simply the presence of @disney in the tweet.
In your example, I would be Tweeting you explicitly saying “I’ll give you $5.” Maybe that’s a binding contract.
That’s not what Disney is doing. What Disney is doing would be like if I said “Anyone who Tweets at me owes me $5.” That’s obviously not a binding contract.
You're really twisting words here. No that is not what is happening. I never agreed to any exchange. I should be able to tweet at Disney with that hashtag and not agree to their ToS. Nothing about a hashtag implies consent. It is not their service to set terms for. I already agreed to the twitter ToS. I shouldn't have to be worried about accidentally agreeing to terms just because I used the right combination of hashtag and twitter user.
Tweeting is (generally speaking) a public performance, not something which is "sent" to someone. The same applies to most open platforms, including Hacker News comments like this one.
