No, but they’d have to make the connection that this action in some way limits their speech.
I’m not sure the timing alone is enough to pass that muster. Strict scrutiny applies for Corporate speech, but that has been applied to cases where the speech is directly limited.
For example, a fine placed on commercial speech which carries a political message or limits on political endorsements.
I’m having trouble seeing where, legally, that applies to what has occurred here.
If RCID is not TWDC, and TWDC has no tangible financial benefit from RCID, what exactly is TWDC losing? How are they harmed?
To be punitive, it would need to involve that, would it not?
I’m simply not sure there is enough.
This is why I mentioned the IRS “scandals” from several years ago. It was seen as political retribution. Perhaps, behind closed doors, it was, or perhaps it was just bad timing. But, it never went anywhere because it was, in fact, legal.