News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[mkt]

I'm baffled that people are trying to spin this as a win for Disney.

While I suppose you could call it a win in relative terms compared to a worst case scenario, Florida/the governor got just about everything they wanted. If you had to pick a winner between the state and Disney, it was clearly the state.

From a legal standpoint, Disney is in a worse position than they were before, and the potential of the federal lawsuit is not significant leverage to protect their interests. There's no guarantee they would even win (as much as it seems like a blatant "chilling effect" case to this attorney).

Easy. Disney is still operating as before, while being able to frame the exit from the Lake Nona campus as a consequence of the state’s retaliation. Meanwhile, Florida walked away looking like an unreliable business partner and a political bully.

The board fell in line. Permits kept flowing. The billion-dollar development plan moved forward. Disney reopened its donation pipeline. The headlines faded.

The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, so the legal pressure is still there if the state tries anything again. Disney kept control and held onto its leverage.

If that is what losing looks like, most companies would take it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm baffled that people are trying to spin this as a win for Disney.

While I suppose you could call it a win in relative terms compared to a worst case scenario, Florida/the governor got just about everything they wanted. If you had to pick a winner between the state and Disney, it was clearly the state.

From a legal standpoint, Disney is in a worse position than they were before, and the potential of the federal lawsuit is not significant leverage to protect their interests. There's no guarantee they would even win (as much as it seems like a blatant "chilling effect" case to this attorney).

In the end…they’re always gonna be “mutual hostages”

Florida…especially now…would love to exploit Disney for cheap political donations…

But in the end, I think they pay half their sales tax in a place that can’t get it right anyway.

So at most…there will be ripples here and there

 

[flynnibus]

Disney brought the lawsuit to protect its business, not to vindicate its constitutional rights

Let's not forget the entire thing that drew Disney into the conflict... Standing up for it's employees in the state of florida. The lawsuits were just specific actions taken, not inclusive of the topic as a whole. And the state acted against the company, and in the grand scheme, Disney capitulated and accepted the new reality that they need to fear retribution.. and will likely influence their behavior going forward.

This is bigger than the lawsuits that were filed, mainly because the decision about the state vs fed case effectively lead to the 1A topic never being litigated

 

[flynnibus]

If that is what losing looks like, most companies would take it.

And imagine being an employee who was lobbying your employer as the biggest in the state to take a stand on your behalf... and what you could assume your company leaders would do 5 years ago.. vs what they will do now.

Are you still winning?

 

[mkt]

And imagine being an employee who was lobbying your employer as the biggest in the state to take a stand on your behalf... and what you could assume your company leaders would do 5 years ago.. vs what they will do now.

Are you still winning?

Totally fair. The trust cast members had in leadership five years ago is not what it is today. That shift matters.

So yes, Disney is still winning in the corporate sense. But that does not mean everyone came out ahead. That is a separate and valid conversation.

 

[mkt]

I have to thank this thread. I've wanted to write a substack about this, but shelved it. Now i'm digging through the past few years's worth of notes, and some of my own replies to this thread to put something together.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Totally fair. The trust cast members had in leadership five years ago is not what it is today. That shift matters.

So yes, Disney is still winning in the corporate sense. But that does not mean everyone came out ahead. That is a separate and valid conversation.

Breaking news…the “leadership” is awful…only a puppet board keeps it in place.

But that management set its employees up for failure by deciding what its mission statement was gonna be in a vaccum Without paying attention to how actually Living humans would react.

Just had this conversation about Disney at home yesterday

Progress is good…but if you don’t recognize where people are first…you fail and pour gas on the blaze

 

[Chi84]

Let's not forget the entire thing that drew Disney into the conflict... Standing up for it's employees in the state of florida. The lawsuits were just specific actions taken, not inclusive of the topic as a whole. And the state acted against the company, and in the grand scheme, Disney capitulated and accepted the new reality that they need to fear retribution.. and will likely influence their behavior going forward.

This is bigger than the lawsuits that were filed, mainly because the decision about the state vs fed case effectively lead to the 1A topic never being litigated

I see it entirely differently. Disney stood up for its employees but that stance was the MacGuffin. I doubt either the State or Disney cared all that deeply about it.

Disney’s words provided the vehicle for a political power move by a politician. It wasn’t until he messed with their business that Disney took its true stance, which was protecting that business. The lawsuits were not just “specific actions taken” they were the be all and end all for Disney.

When Disney was satisfied that it could go back to business as usual it settled, which happens in nearly every federal suit.

It would be wonderful to think that the settlement discussions involved Disney caring about retribution for future speech or content, but I don’t think this mattered all that much.

 

[flynnibus]

I see it entirely differently. Disney stood up for its employees but that stance was the MacGuffin. I doubt either the State or Disney cared all that deeply about it.

DeSantis cared enough about it to make it the cross to hang Disney on and literally point the cannon at his state's biggest employer. What DeSantis cared about was the dissent and countering his political platform point. When that platform no longer suited his purpose, he was willing to let the topic go.

Disney cared enough to make it a topic until they had to choose between digging in and accepting a new world order. The new boss chose the later.. smile, shake hands, and derisk the business.

Disney’s words provided the vehicle for a political power move by a politician. It wasn’t until he messed with their business that Disney took its true stance, which was protecting that business. The lawsuits were not just “specific actions taken” they were the be all and end all for Disney.

The lawsuits did not fire all the bullets Disney had - Disney took very focused action - a narrow focus to defend the DA and entrenchment Disney had setup -- Rather than tackling the larger 1A topics. So I don't agree with labeling the lawsuits being "the be all end all for Disney". Disney responded in a very narrow focus and kept stuff in reserve... but the new boss made it clear they had no appetite for a public fight. A stance he made clear even before returning to the company - Iger wanted to remove the gov as a roadblock and made concessions to do it.

When Disney was satisfied that it could go back to business as usual it settled, which happens in nearly every federal suit.

It would be wonderful to think that the settlement discussions involved Disney caring about retribution for future speech or content, but I don’t think this mattered all that much.

The landscape changed when DeSantis' political career shifted and it opened the door for both sides to make a "business first" agreement. The narrative that Disney was cool with the changes from the start is non-sense.. and I don't agree with the assessment they are in the same spot they were before. I also don't agree with Disney not caring about the fight.. they simply have a CEO who wanted the problem to go away and they negotiated a way to get there.

 

[flynnibus]

So yes, Disney is still winning in the corporate sense. But that does not mean everyone came out ahead. That is a separate and valid conversation.

Disney is "winning" in that they negotiated a truce that cleared the cloud out from over the immediate business. But they lost in that they had to concede that was the best position they can settle for now and there was no consequence nor limit to the GOP targeting them. They lost that a single side of the legislature was able to act as a group and forcibly remove what the company had so carefully crafted for nearly 60yrs. They lost in that the general public did not see this action as a government illegally targeting a business, but as something justified and needed.

They lost the PR battle
They lost control of the district
They had to backdown from supporting their employees
They negotiated in the backroom to simply forge a new "understanding" that results in a truce and agreement to allow Disney to commit to spending big money in FL
They have no assurances that the wind won't change tomorrow - and a new heavy handed person in Tallahassee doesn't start bullying for something else

Meanwhile, the very actions that allowed Disney to be targeted and forced them to concede still exist and continue as allowed.

This is why I say Disney secured a truce - nothing more. Iger was able to navigate the situation DeSantis was in to quietly secure a return to status quo... without requiring an admission of guilt and allow both sides to claim to 'wins'. At the end of the day, Disney dealt with the devil to just keep the machine running. They didn't get rid of the devil or free themselves from his will...

 

[Chi84]

DeSantis cared enough about it to make it the cross to hang Disney on and literally point the cannon at his state's biggest employer. What DeSantis cared about was the dissent and countering his political platform point. When that platform no longer suited his purpose, he was willing to let the topic go.

Disney cared enough to make it a topic until they had to choose between digging in and accepting a new world order. The new boss chose the later.. smile, shake hands, and derisk the business.


The lawsuits did not fire all the bullets Disney had - Disney took very focused action - a narrow focus to defend the DA and entrenchment Disney had setup -- Rather than tackling the larger 1A topics. So I don't agree with labeling the lawsuits being "the be all end all for Disney". Disney responded in a very narrow focus and kept stuff in reserve... but the new boss made it clear they had no appetite for a public fight. A stance he made clear even before returning to the company - Iger wanted to remove the gov as a roadblock and made concessions to do it.


The landscape changed when DeSantis' political career shifted and it opened the door for both sides to make a "business first" agreement. The narrative that Disney was cool with the changes from the start is non-sense.. and I don't agree with the assessment they are in the same spot they were before. I also don't agree with Disney not caring about the fight.. they simply have a CEO who wanted the problem to go away and they negotiated a way to get there.

We may be saying exactly the same thing using different words. You’re compartmentalizing the company into “Disney” and “the CEO.”

I’m saying Disney cared (somewhat) about the fight but Disney wanted the problem to go away and made a business decision to make that happen.

I don’t know about characterizing it as “accepting a new world order,” although I’m certain many people see it that way.

My main point is that if there’s a new world order, it isn’t Disney bringing it into existence. And expecting a corporation to take the lead in ensuring people’s rights is bound to lead to disappointment because that is not their goal.

 

[UNCgolf]

Easy. Disney is still operating as before, while being able to frame the exit from the Lake Nona campus as a consequence of the state’s retaliation. Meanwhile, Florida walked away looking like an unreliable business partner and a political bully.

The board fell in line. Permits kept flowing. The billion-dollar development plan moved forward. Disney reopened its donation pipeline. The headlines faded.

The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, so the legal pressure is still there if the state tries anything again. Disney kept control and held onto its leverage.

If that is what losing looks like, most companies would take it.

The federal case isn't significant legal pressure. The state never seemed overly concerned about it -- and as I said above, while I personally think it should be an open and shut "chilling effect" case, it likely wouldn't be. Florida would have a realistic chance of winning; it's far from a guaranteed victory for Disney.

Florida essentially got what they wanted. Disney, on the other hand, started with one thing and ended with a lesser thing for no reason other than governmental bullying. They lost something while gaining nothing.

If you want to claim that it's a win for Disney in terms of what happened after RCID was eliminated, then that's at least arguable, but I don't think any company would consider it a victory from the original starting point. As I said before, Disney mitigated their losses, but they certainly didn't win.

 

[flynnibus]

We may be saying exactly the same thing using different words. You’re compartmentalizing the company into “Disney” and “the CEO.”

I’m saying Disney cared (somewhat) about the fight but Disney wanted the problem to go away and made a business decision to make that happen.

Well because there was a distinct pivot in Disney's approach to the entire story here.. and it coincided with the change in CEO. And some people are painting Disney of 2022 the same as the Disney of 2024 as if there is a continuity there.. when there is a very stark CHANGE that happened.. so being explicit in what was behind that change matters.

I don’t know about characterizing it as “accepting a new world order,” although I’m certain many people see it that way.

The comment refers to accepting CFTOD as it is and how it's managed, and the policies that drive it vs what existed prior. We can see even now, how almost overnight the CFTOD can go from "friendly" to combative... and flip again almost as quickly. That's the new world world they have accepted.

My main point is that if there’s a new world order, it isn’t Disney bringing it into existence. And expecting a corporation to take the lead in ensuring people’s rights is bound to lead to disappointment because that is not their goal.

Disney was the party impacted - it is on Disney to fight that fight if anyone were to file suit to contest it. Others can't do it from the outside...

 

[Chi84]

The federal case isn't significant legal pressure. The state never seemed overly concerned about it -- and as I said above, while I personally think it should be an open and shut "chilling effect" case, it likely wouldn't be. Florida would have a realistic chance of winning; it's far from a guaranteed victory for Disney.

Florida essentially got what they wanted. Disney, on the other hand, started with one thing and ended with a lesser thing for no reason other than governmental bullying. They lost something while gaining nothing.

If you want to claim that it's a win for Disney in terms of what happened after RCID was eliminated, then that's at least arguable, but I don't think any company would consider it a victory from the original starting point. As I said before, Disney mitigated their losses, but they certainly didn't win.

We don’t know what would have happened if Disney hadn’t settled. But government bullying definitely had its day.

 

[mkt]

The federal case isn't significant legal pressure. The state never seemed overly concerned about it -- and as I said above, while I personally think it should be an open and shut "chilling effect" case, it likely wouldn't be. Florida would have a realistic chance of winning; it's far from a guaranteed victory for Disney.

Florida essentially got what they wanted. Disney, on the other hand, started with one thing and ended with a lesser thing for no reason other than governmental bullying. They lost something while gaining nothing.

If you want to claim that it's a win for Disney in terms of what happened after RCID was eliminated, then that's at least arguable, but I don't think any company would consider it a victory from the original starting point. As I said before, Disney mitigated their losses, but they certainly didn't win.

I’m not saying the federal case was a slam dunk - just that it existed as leverage. Whether or not Disney would’ve won, the filing let them signal "We’re not done here" and gave them a legal foothold to keep the conversation going on their terms. Especially if the next version landed in front of a more sympathetic judge.

Did Florida technically get what it wanted? Sure - RCID was dissolved, and they got to appoint their own board. But functionally, Disney’s still operating almost exactly as before. The board isn’t pushing back. Permits are gliding through. That’s billions in infrastructure and expansion moving forward without friction.

So if we’re scoring this on optics, Florida "won." But if we’re scoring on actual outcomes? Disney never really stopped. I’d call that a check, not a checkmate.

 

[UNCgolf]

We don’t know what would have happened if Disney hadn’t settled. But government bullying definitely had its day.

Indeed.

And while I wish Disney had fought to the end, that was never likely. Publicly traded corporations just don't really operate that way. For example, I've represented corporate clients who had a good chance of prevailing against the government in regulatory investigations, but they would have spent more on the fight than they spent on the settlement -- so they settled. There's always going to be a cost/benefit analysis (which often involves more than just the potential legal fees) regardless of whether they think they're right.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Harvard is more likely to fight to the end in their current litigation (although that's certainly not guaranteed). They don't have to worry about shareholders, although they do have some other outside concerns.

 

[LAKid53]

Indeed.

And while I wish Disney had fought to the end, that was never likely. Publicly traded corporations just don't really operate that way. For example, I've represented corporate clients who had a good chance of prevailing against the government in regulatory investigations, but they would have spent more on the fight than they spent on the settlement -- so they settled. There's always going to be a cost/benefit analysis (which often involves more than just the cost of legal fees) regardless of whether they think they're right.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Harvard is more likely to fight to the end in their current litigation (although that's certainly not guaranteed). They don't have to worry about shareholders (they do have some other outside concerns, though).

Precisely

 

[mkt]

Disney is "winning" in that they negotiated a truce that cleared the cloud out from over the immediate business. But they lost in that they had to concede that was the best position they can settle for now and there was no consequence nor limit to the GOP targeting them. They lost that a single side of the legislature was able to act as a group and forcibly remove what the company had so carefully crafted for nearly 60yrs. They lost in that the general public did not see this action as a government illegally targeting a business, but as something justified and needed.

They lost the PR battle
They lost control of the district
They had to backdown from supporting their employees
They negotiated in the backroom to simply forge a new "understanding" that results in a truce and agreement to allow Disney to commit to spending big money in FL
They have no assurances that the wind won't change tomorrow - and a new heavy handed person in Tallahassee doesn't start bullying for something else

Meanwhile, the very actions that allowed Disney to be targeted and forced them to concede still exist and continue as allowed.

This is why I say Disney secured a truce - nothing more. Iger was able to navigate the situation DeSantis was in to quietly secure a return to status quo... without requiring an admission of guilt and allow both sides to claim to 'wins'. At the end of the day, Disney dealt with the devil to just keep the machine running. They didn't get rid of the devil or free themselves from his will...

That’s a fair framing if you’re evaluating from a strictly structural standpoint Yes, Disney no longer controls the board, and yes, they negotiated toward a new normal rather than scorched-earth resistance. But to say they “lost the PR battle”? I strongly disagree.

Florida came off as punitive, erratic, and willing to jeopardize thousands of high-paying jobs over a political tantrum. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether coincidental or not - felt like fallout, and perception did the heavy lifting. That loss is now linked to the state’s actions. No press release needed. Florida is viewed as having cost the region several thousand high earners, along with their housing demand, business growth, and tax revenue. That’s not just bad optics. That’s third-world-level policy sabotage.

Meanwhile, Disney kept building. The board that was supposed to rein them in greenlit a $17B expansion. Bond authority stayed. Infrastructure control stayed. Functionally, nothing stopped.

Sure, the expansion brings jobs. But they're mostly tourism and hospitality roles. These aren't six-figure white collar transfers — they're hourly park positions. Florida traded a long-term white-collar boom for a short-term PR win and a few more popcorn carts.

That’s not a victory. That’s a downgrade.

If anything, Disney let Florida win the headline, then quietly walked away with the outcome. That’s not “dealing with the devil.” That’s knowing when to let the devil shake his fist at a cloud while you pour the foundation for your next park expansion.

 

[MR.Dis]

Disney won in one respect, this incident totally destroyed a certain Govenors hope of ever being seen as Presidential material.

 

[Prince-1]

Disney won in one respect, this incident totally destroyed a certain Govenors hope of ever being seen as Presidential material.

Oh Ronnie didn't need Disney's help to accomplish that. He was never going to be president.