In a lawsuit, Disney charged Florida Governor Ron DeSantis with orchestrating a campaign of “government retaliation”.
The conflict between the media mogul and the Republican politician has been substantially escalated by the latest legal action.
Since Disney criticised a state law prohibiting discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in primary schools, the two sides have been at odds.
The lawsuit was filed after state officials cancelled a development agreement regarding the company’s amusement park in Florida.
Disney claimed that Mr. DeSantis’ actions to seize authority over its affairs jeopardised its operations and went against its constitutional rights.
It requested the court to reverse the actions.
Disney’s parks division expressed remorse in the complaint it had to bring in a Florida federal court, adding, “Disney regrets it has come to this.”
To protect its cast members, visitors, and local development partners from a never-ending campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with some state officials, the company is left with no choice but to file this lawsuit after exhausting all other avenues for resolving the issue.
The state’s actions had previously been characterised by Mr. DeSantis, who is presently on a round-the-world tour, as measures to do rid of special benefits for a firm that were no longer in the public interest.
He had claimed that the state will not “bend a knee to woke executives in California”.
His communications director Taryn Fenske responded to the complaint by saying, “We are unaware of any legal entitlement that a firm has to run its own government or keep special advantages not enjoyed by other businesses in the state.
The lawsuit is another another regrettable illustration of their efforts to undermine the decision of the Florida voters and break the law.
Why is there a dispute?
The dispute with Disney, which established the city-scale Walt Disney World in Florida in 1971 and is one of the largest employers in the state, has raised Mr. DeSantis’ prominence and made him a more likely Republican presidential candidate.He has backed policies like the Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by detractors, which forbids discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for students aged nine and under, and the restriction on abortions after six weeks.
This month, the state extended the restriction to all grades.
Last year, Disney criticised that law in response to pressure from its employees.
The special district that had been established more than 50 years prior to supervise the growth of the area surrounding Disney World, which includes four theme parks, dozens of hotels, and entertainment venues, was subsequently restructured by Florida politicians.
The actions took away Mr. DeSantis’ right to name members to the district’s governing board from the 25,000-acre district’s landowners, of which Disney is by far the largest.
Mr. DeSantis announced the change by saying, “There’s a new sheriff in town.”
Disney, however, came to a last-minute agreement before the new board was put into place that outlined the district’s area of development and granted Disney the authority to examine any modifications made to properties inside its boundaries.
The agreement had provisions that would remain in effect forever, or “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” and it restricted the new board’s authority.
In his statement, Mr. DeSantis claimed that Disney “tried to pull a fast one” by announcing intentions for government probes and other potential legal proceedings. He openly discussed a number of options, such as the implementation of new taxes and tolls as well as the building of a state prison next to the parks.
The conflict between Mr DeSantis and Disney, according to Disney CEO Bob Iger, is “anti-business” and “anti-Florida”.
“Development and investment of this magnitude cannot effectively take place when it can be nullified or undermined at the whim of new political leadership,” the firm claimed in the case, saying that it planned to invest $17 billion at Walt Disney World over the next ten years.
It claimed that due public notice, including publication in a local newspaper, was given prior to the current development deal’s acceptance.
Michael Allan Wolf, a University of Florida law professor and specialist in municipal government and property law, expressed his surprise that Mr. DeSantis had chosen to take on Disney.
He was unsurprised to see the business show up in court, though.
“What the governor and legislature have been doing has had a cumulative effect,” he claimed. “We shouldn’t be surprised that Disney is responding, given the way the governor and legislature have targeted Disney.”
He claimed that the corporation seemed to have a solid case and predicted that other businesses will be watching to see how the dispute is settled.
He stated, “One might truly wonder if other corporations will make the same sorts of investments to realise ambitious ambitions in the state of Florida if they no longer have the confidence that the state will one day not pull the rug out from under them.
Republicans have criticised Mr. DeSantis for his battle with Disney because it appears to go against conventional conservative beliefs opposing government meddling with private property rights.
Former US president Donald Trump claimed that the governor had been “outplayed, outsmarted, and embarrassed by Mickey Mouse” if Mr. DeSantis wins the Republican nomination for president.
