Disney Sues YouTube Over Poaching Exec Ahead of Licensing Renewal Deals
Disney filed a breach of contract lawsuit over Justin Connolly's defection.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney Sues YouTube Over Poaching Exec Ahead of Licensing Renewal Deals
- Thread starter MisterPenguin
- Start date
www.hollywoodreporter.com
Pix E. Dust
Well-Known Member
This makes no sense to me but I am no lawyer. I don't get why YouTube would be sued. They did not have a contract with Disney.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
While its not technically illegal for a company to hire a competitors employees away, if said employee had a no-compete clause (which no doubt Disney would have that in their executive contracts) and YouTube knowingly (or in some cases unknowingly) hired away such an employee they can face antitrust lawsuits. As it can be see as trying to gain trade secrets from a competitor. Plus while its unknown if Disney and Google (owner of YouTube) have a "no-poach" agreement, it wouldn't be surprising if they do as you wouldn't want to be seen as trying to poach each others employees away, again for antitrust reasons. Google has had such agreements with other tech companies for this very reason, and even got into trouble over them before.
Also Disney does have a contract with YouTube for ads sales and distribution of content over YouTubeLive, which is up for renewal. So trying to hire someone away who would have been involved in that contract to run that same group ahead of the renewal can also be problematic and be seen as a conflict of interest.
Pix E. Dust
Well-Known Member
Thank you. That information is more helpful than the article.
Chi84
Premium Member
Disney filed a three-count complaint against Connolly and YouTube.
Count 1 is brought against Connolly only (not YouTube) and alleges that Connolly breached his employment agreement with Disney by leaving before the contract expired and going to work for a competitor.
Count 2 is against YouTube and several as-yet unnamed individuals (not Connolly) and alleges tortious interference with contractual relations. A tort is a civil wrong (a violation of civil rather than criminal laws) and is not based on a contract. Basically, Disney is alleging that YouTube knew that Connolly had a binding contract with Disney and induced him to breach that contract by offering him a job.
Count 3 is against YouTube and the other individuals (not Connolly) and alleges that YouTube violated a California law prohibiting business acts or practices that amount to unfair competition. The business act by YouTube was recruiting Connolly knowing that he was prohibited by contract from working for YouTube during the terms of his contract.
The important part of the lawsuit is the relief that is being requested. In most civil cases, the plaintiff is limited to collecting monetary damages from the defendant. Here, Disney is claiming that monetary damages would not be enough to remedy the harm done by the defendants. Disney is asking for an injunction - a court order prohibiting Connolly from working for YouTube.
This lawsuit is entirely in the California state court - no federal claims.
Last edited:
Pix E. Dust
Well-Known Member
Count 1 seems straightforward enough to me. Count 2 and 3 is where me (a lay person from a different country) gets a bit confused. I believe that YouTube is potentially somehow breaking thr law but the law seems dumb. If I entice you to do something you know you shouldn't, the onus should be on you.
Chi84
Premium Member
Just to carry it to an exaggerated example, if I entice you (using money as YouTube is doing) to harm or kill someone else, should the onus be only on you or should I bear some responsibility?