I don't agree.
I'm an attorney, and while I'm not a contracts attorney, I do negotiate terms and conditions from time to time.
Without getting into the technical weeds of the matter, the terms and conditions do account for park closures. I suppose, technically, if they wanted to push the issue, they could argue that extending the passes by the amount of time Disney Parks were closed (minus any days expired for those whose APs expired during the closure) resolves the issue of the 117 day closure. I think if they chose not to do this, they would lose in litigation and be pummeled in the media.
The real crux of the issue now is to determine whether their terms and conditions covers them for the park reservation period, which starts July 11 with no end date in sight. Our argument is that we are unable to enjoy the benefit of the bargain, which is to access any park we desire, at any time, along with a wealth of Disney "benefits" that come with it (photopass, free parking, discount on food and merchandise, etc). Their argument is that the terms and conditions do not guarantee park entry.
There are multiple claims to be made here, and while I don't need to get into all of them, here is where I think they lose. They are treating resort guests differently than annual passholders. For resort guests, it's "up to" 14 days that may be reserved. For annual passholders, it's 3 days. If they were treating everyone the same, Disney would have a stronger argument for the "no guarantee", using COVID-19 and state restrictions as an argument. However, that's not what is happening here. Disney is simply restricting annual passholders of the same benefits and guarantees they are granting resort guests. That, to me, represents a material change of the terms and conditions of the annual pass agreement.
I do sincerely hope Disney Legal (a place I would love to work someday) is advising their client to change course before July 11, and in the least, offer a full prorated refund.
My 2 cents.