It all started with a legal claim from Scarlett Johansson that his earnings were affected by Black Widow due to the decision of Disney to release the film both in cinemas and on its streaming platform. The actress’s agreement included a percentage of what the film raised in theaters. Therefore, the premiere in Premier Access streaming meant less profit for the actress. From Disney stated that the strategy was aimed at protecting the public from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In that sense, the brand accused Scarlett Johansson to have an attitude “insensible” in the face of the Coronovirus crisis. The interpreter’s legal advisers decided to act on the matter. Especially since since the Mouse House intend to resolve the issue in arbitration away from public opinion.
The legal battle between Scarlett Johansson and Disney continues
“After initially responding to this litigation with a misogynistic attack against Scarlett Johansson, Disney is now trying to cover up his misconduct with confidential arbitration “, Scarlett’s attorney stated, John Berlinski, by means of a declaration. The defender wondered why the company seeks this resolution if they insist on having acted in good faith.
“Disney knows that the promise to give to Black Widow a theatrical release, like the rest of his films, had everything to do with ensuring that the company didn’t cannibalize box office revenue to drive subscriptions to Disney+. Yet that is exactly what happened. We look forward to presenting the overwhelming evidence to prove it. “added the defender.
Bob Chapek, charged with protecting the interests of Disney, spoke in favor of the method the company used to display Black Widow, taking into account the context of the global pandemic by COVID-19 as one of the main reasons. The lawyer cited “hundreds of agreements” reached within that reality. Evidently, Scarlett Johansson it is not one of those cases.
The Curse of Hill House / Bly Manor