YouTube Disputes Disney Lawsuit’s Claims Over Justin Connolly Hiring, Alleges Disney Is Using Exec as ‘Pawn’ in License Talks

by

YouTube has countered Disney’s legal action aimed at preventing YouTube from employing Justin Connolly, a senior executive in media distribution who previously worked at Disney. In other words, YouTube is standing up against Disney’s lawsuit over their decision to hire Mr. Connolly.

Last month, Connolly left Disney and ESPN, where he had worked for over two decades, to take up the role of Global VP of Media and Sports Partnerships at YouTube. In response, Disney filed a lawsuit against both YouTube and Connolly on May 21 in California state court. The suit alleges that Connolly breached his contract, interfered with a previous contractual relationship in a harmful way, and engaged in unfair competition.

YouTube has responded to Disney’s lawsuit by stating: “Disney is asking the court to enforce a ‘fixed term’ employment contract against defendant Justin Connolly, issue an order that would prevent Mr. Connolly from working and demand that he cannot work for any employer of his choice for years. This is what YouTube argued in their filing on June 2 with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

In its statement, YouTube disagreed with multiple points raised by Disney’s lawsuit. The Disney lawsuit claims that Connolly had entered into a three-year contract in November 2024, and his shift to YouTube is said to be in conflict with this agreement (since Connolly had an option to end it at any point starting March 1, 2027).

YouTube maintains that they hired Connolly on an employment-at-will basis, which means they have the sole power to terminate him without cause or notice. In their statement, they emphasize that they are not obligated to give any reason for his dismissal. YouTube also claims that a court order forcing Connolly to either go back to work at Disney or resign from his position at YouTube is against California law. This is based on their legal filing.

YouTube contends that Disney’s plea for “urgent aid” lacks merit, as Disney had been aware for more than six weeks that Mr. Connolly was planning to depart Disney and join YouTube instead.

As a movie enthusiast, I’ve just stepped down from my role as the President of Disney Platform Distribution where I spearheaded all third-party media sales endeavors, covering distribution, affiliate marketing, and associated business operations – yes, even collaborations with YouTube.

According to a statement submitted to the court, Connolly announced in April 2025 that he would no longer play a significant role in the negotiations regarding the renewal of Disney’s license with YouTube, following his decision to accept an offer from YouTube. Subsequently, another Disney executive assumed the lead negotiator position for the YouTube license (with other Disney executives taking over various ongoing negotiations on behalf of the company), as documented in court filings.

In April 2025, Google and Disney were in discussions about Google’s intention to recruit Connolly for the YouTube position, as stated in the YouTube filing. Disney requested that their negotiations for renewing their contract with YouTube, which usually wouldn’t start until August 2025, be given priority, according to the internet company. Instead of referencing Connolly’s contract that supposedly kept him from leaving Disney to join YouTube, as suggested by YouTube, Disney made it clear they intended to use Mr. Connolly as a bargaining chip to push for their license renewal negotiations with YouTube.

Google proposed an earlier start for the YouTube licensing negotiations with Disney, as they could expedite this process if Mr. Connolly joined YouTube more quickly (since his prompt arrival would allow him to handle contract talks with other firms, enabling YouTube’s current staff to concentrate on Disney’s license renewal). However, according to YouTube, Disney has yet to respond to Google’s latest communication and hasn’t provided a significant way for Mr. Connolly to depart Disney amicably.

YouTube’s response to Disney’s lawsuit implied that Connolly is not comparable to a renowned musician or top-tier athlete.

YouTube contends that Connolly’s work for Disney didn’t provide any exceptional, distinctive, or extraordinary services, which are the types typically protected under personal service contracts. According to YouTube’s submission, this exception applies mainly to contracts involving well-known artists, performers, and professional athletes who offer services of special character.

Regarding Connolly’s knowledge of Disney information, YouTube said that is “irrelevant.”

YouTube has informed Disney that Mr. Connolly will have no role in their negotiations for a licensing agreement. Furthermore, YouTube’s employment offer to Connolly requires him to maintain his confidentiality with Disney and prohibits him from using or disclosing any of Disney’s secret or proprietary information during his work at YouTube,” YouTube stated in the filing.

As a passionate film enthusiast, I’m following the news about the dispute between Connolly and Disney closely. YouTube has labeled Connolly’s employment agreement with Disney as “unconscionable.” This is due to several reasons: firstly, Disney pressured Connolly into signing it without legal representation, leaving him at a significant bargaining disadvantage. Secondly, the agreement is one-sided, binding only Connolly to work for an extended period, while Disney retains the power to terminate his employment at will and without cause. Lastly, there seems to be no justification for this lopsided termination clause in the Employment Agreement, which raises concerns about fairness.

The California court, currently handling the dispute titled Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC versus YouTube LLC and others, has set a hearing for June 4th to consider Disney’s request for a short-term injunction aimed at preventing Connolly from being employed by YouTube.

Read More

2025-06-03 20:47