​
By Robyn Ma​

The Story
Scarlett Johansson is suing Disney. Her lawsuit claims that the release of the film Black Widow in movie theatres and on streaming service Disney+ breaches Disney’s contractual obligations with Johansson, A contractual clause allegedly guaranteed the film’s exclusive release in cinemas for a short period of time (New York Times).

Disney hit back: "The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic...". (BBC).

What It Means For Businesses And Law Firms
With the Covid-19 pandemic forcing the closure of cinemas globally, the movie theatre industry had to rethink its strategy. Many film studios, for example, started to develop their own streaming platforms, and are now experimenting with “mixing cinema releases and streaming” to win back viewership (BBC). This new hybrid strategy calls into question how film actors are compensated.

Last year, Warner Bros was criticised when it announced that all its 2021 movies would be released simultaneously in theatres and on HBO Max (CNBC). Having provided 75% of the financing for the films Dune and Godzilla vs Kong, Legendary Entertainment felt blindsided by the announcement, and issued legal warnings to Warner Bros (ScreenRant). Despite the backlash from Warner Bros’ decision, Disney went ahead with its dual-release of Black Widow.

Johansson’s lawsuit may set a precedent for other actors to follow, leading to crew members and production companies pursuing class-action lawsuits (ScreenRant). Large media companies should be careful to avoid making unilateral decisions without consulting their various stakeholders, as Warner Bros did.

The lawsuit mainly rests on a contractual dispute between Johansson and Disney. Actors’ contracts typically include a clause ensuring actors are paid certain fixed fees upfront, and are offered additional bonuses later based on ticket sales. This could involve an exclusive theatrical release to maximise box office profits. Due to Disney’s use of a hybrid release model, Johansson claims that she has lost $50 million in potential earnings. Disney has been accused of “lur[ing] the picture’s audience away from movie theaters towards its own streaming service, where it could keep revenues for itself” (New York Times).

Additionally, Disney’s response to Johansson has been criticised as a “gendered character attack” that paints the actress as “selfish” (ScreenRant). Female-led organisations have banded together in support of Johansson, slamming Disney’s statement as contributing “to an environment where women are criticised for defending their own interests” (ScreenRant). Johansson’s team also pointed to Disney’s “attack” as falsely accusing the actress of being insensitive to Covid-19, and “weaponi[sing]” her success by including her salary in the press statement (BBC). Disney’s statement appears to threaten Johansson’s public image without adequately responding to the legalities of the lawsuit.

There may be issues of reputational risks at play, which lawyers may advise upon. TMT (Technology Media and Telecoms) lawyers will also likely be discussing the contractual underpinnings at play in this case, with dispute resolution solicitors handling the litigious process. Johansson is being represented by New York-based boutique firm Kasowitz Benson Torres (Reuters).

Image Credit: AFM Visuals/shutterstock.com