Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Matters On May 12, 2023, a private securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek, its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy, and the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company (the “Securities Class Action”). On November 6, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the same action, adding Robert Iger, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, as a defendant. Claims in the Securities Class Action include (i) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, (ii) violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Iger and McCarthy, and (iii) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all defendants. Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning, and a scheme to conceal, accurate costs and subscriber growth of the Disney+ platform. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, plus interest and costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on December 21, 2023. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on September 27, 2024. The lawsuit is in the early stages and at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. Three shareholder derivative complaints have been filed. The first, in which Hugues Gervat is the plaintiff, was filed on August 4, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The second, in which Stourbridge Investments LLC is the plaintiff, was filed on August 23, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. And the third, in which Audrey McAdams is the Plaintiff, was filed on December 15, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Each named The Walt Disney Company as a nominal defendant and alleged claims on its behalf against the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Robert Iger; its former Chief Executive Officer, Robert Chapek; its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M. McCarthy; the former Chairman of the Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel, and ten current and former members of the Disney Board (Susan E. Arnold; Mary T. Barra; Safra A. Catz; Amy L. Chang; Francis A. deSouza; Michael B.G. Froman; Maria Elena Lagomasino; Calvin R. McDonald; Mark G. Parker; and Derica W. Rice). Along with alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, premised on similar allegations as the Securities Class Action, plaintiffs seek to recover under various theories including breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste. On October 24, 2023, the Stourbridge action was voluntarily dismissed and, on November 16, 2023, was refiled in Delaware state court alleging analogous theories of liability based on state law. On October 30, 2023, the Gervat action was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the Securities Class Action. The Stourbridge action was likewise stayed under an order entered December 12, 2023 and the McAdams action was stayed under an order entered February 20, 2024. The actions seek declarative and injunctive relief, an award of unspecified damages to The Walt Disney Company and other costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. The lawsuits are in the early stages, and at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. On November 18, 2022, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to YouTube TV (the “Biddle Action”). The plaintiffs in the Biddle Action asserted a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that Disney uses certain pricing and packaging provisions in its carriage agreements with vMVPDs to increase prices for and reduce output of certain services offered by vMVPDs. On November 30, 2022, a second private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to DirecTV Stream (the “Fendelander Action”), making similar allegations. The Company filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim in both the Biddle Action and Fendelander Action on January 31, 2023. On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions to dismiss both cases and, on October 13, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating both cases. On October 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended putative class action complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”). The Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee antitrust laws based on substantially similar allegations as the Biddle Action and the Fendelander Action. The Consolidated Complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified money damages and costs and fees. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to state a claim on December 1, 2023. The Company’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted in part and denied in part on June 25, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Court entered a case management order setting, among other dates, Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their class certification motion on March 27, 2026. On January 14, 2025, a private antitrust putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company on behalf of a putative class of certain subscribers to fuboTV (the “Unger Action”), making similar allegations to those in the now-consolidated Biddle and Fendelander Actions. The consolidated lawsuit and the Unger Action are in the early stages, and at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss. On February 20, 2024, a private antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company (including affiliates ESPN, Inc., ESPN Enterprises, Inc., and Hulu, LLC), Fox, and WBD (collectively, “Defendants”), by fuboTV Inc. and fuboTV Media Inc. (together, “Fubo”). Fubo asserted claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and New York antitrust law based on the theories that (a) a then planned joint venture between ESPN, Inc., Fox, and WBD, which would have distributed certain of Defendants’ linear networks to consumers (the “Sports Streaming JV”), would have harmed competition in alleged markets for the licensing of networks that offer live sports content and for streaming live pay television, (b) certain alleged practices by which the Company and Fox license their networks to vMVPDs as a bundle increase prices and reduce output for services offered by vMVPDs, and (c) certain alleged pricing provisions in Defendants’ carriage agreements with YouTube TV and Hulu + Live TV, as well as in Hulu + Live TV’s carriage agreements with non-Defendant programmers, increase prices for services offered by vMVPDs. On April 8, 2024, Fubo filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants to prevent the formation of the Sports Streaming JV. On April 29, 2024, Fubo filed an amended complaint to add allegations of a purported market for “skinny sports bundles”, which Fubo claimed the Sports Streaming JV would have monopolized after its launch. After a hearing on Fubo’s motion for preliminary injunction, the district court granted Fubo’s motion on August 16, 2024, and enjoined the launch of the Sports Streaming JV. On August 19, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order for a preliminary injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Defendants’ motion to expedite the appeal. Defendants filed their initial appeal brief on September 20, 2024, Fubo filed its brief in opposition on November 4, 2024, and Defendants filed their reply brief on December 9, 2024. Oral argument was scheduled for January 6, 2025. Fubo further sought injunctive relief, unspecified money damages and costs and fees. On September 26, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Fubo’s claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and New York antitrust law, unrelated to the joint venture. The district court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss on December 13, 2024. The Defendants reached a settlement with Fubo to resolve this litigation, and on January 6, 2025, filed with the district court a joint stipulation voluntarily dismissing the action with prejudice and extinguishing the preliminary injunction issued on August 16, 2024. The parties also filed on January 6, 2025 a joint stipulation dismissing the appeal, which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit so ordered on January 8, 2025. In May 2024, the Company and NBCU entered into a confidential arbitration to resolve a dispute regarding the contractual appraisal process related to the determination of Hulu’s equity fair value, in which the parties seek declaratory relief, equitable relief and unspecified damages. See Note 1 for a more detailed discussion of the arbitration and the determination of Hulu’s equity fair value. The Company, together with, in some instances, certain of its directors and officers, is a defendant in various other legal actions involving copyright, breach of contract and various other claims incident to the conduct of its businesses. Management does not believe that the Company has incurred a probable material loss by reason of any of those actions. |