Even if the controversy led to a reexamination of the status, would a court actually say that the state was barred from ordering greater corporate uniformity because Disney took a controversial public position? If so, Disney could insulate its corporate status by picking a fight with the state.
DeSantis replaced the handpicked Disney board and the state moved to force Disney to comply with the same laws as other corporations. The company is arguing that these measures were pure retaliation. The question is whether a court would feel comfortable in using such a perceived motivation to block an important state policy for uniformity in regulation.
Disney elected to go head-to-head in opposing the parental rights legislation and lost its favored status with both the state and many families. The question in the litigation is whether that is a prohibited cost to impose on the company or the cost of becoming a political advocate.
[I lean toward the FAFO position here, but it’s enough of a question that it will be interesting to watch the outcome of the case. I don’t think a court will roll back a statute that essentially forces Disney to operate like every other business in the state, regardless of the motivation. We’ll see. Turley has some fun things to say about ‘Snow White,’ too. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member