GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney Over Black Widow Streaming Release, Disney Responds

After the latest MCU movie, Black Widow was released on Disney+, star Scarlett Johansson has filed a lawsuit against Disney

335 Comments

Update: In response to the lawsuit, Disney has released a statement obtained by Variety. "There is no merit whatsoever to this filing," it reads. "The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic." Furthermore, the statement says the company has upheld its end of the contract, while noting the actress has already received $20 million for her role in the film, adding that "…the release of Black Widow on Disney+ with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date." You can read the original story below.

Black Widow isn't done fighting yet. Scarlett Johansson, who reprised her role as Natasha Romanoff in the latest Marvel Cinematic Universe film, has filed a lawsuit against Disney, alleging that the company releasing the movie on the Disney+ streaming service at the same time it did so theatrically was a breach of her contract.

The news comes from The Wall Street Journal, which reports that Johansson's contract not only guaranteed an exclusive theatrical release for the film but that its performance on the big screen would ultimately determine the actress's salary. Of course, Black Widow was originally scheduled to hit theaters in 2020 but was ultimately delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

When a new release date was set, it was announced that the film would hit theaters and Disney+ Premier Access on July 9. According to the suit, "Disney intentionally induced Marvel's breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel."

Per the suit, Johansson's team attempted to renegotiate her contract after the decision to debut the film on Disney+ was made, but Disney and Marvel were not responsive. However, in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by Deadline, Marvel's chief counsel is quoted as previously saying, "We totally understand that Scarlett's willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses." According to WSJ, the decision to not renegotiate could end up costing the actress over $50 million.

Black Widow wasn't the only Disney film to get the Premier Access treatment, which allows audiences to watch the film at home for a limited time for a $30 fee. Before Black Widow, Mulan, Raya and the Last Dragon, and Cruella were all released with this model. Mulan was the lone film to initially only be released via Premier Access, as most theaters around the world were closed. Jungle Cruise--due on July 30--will hit theaters and Premier Access simultaneously and is currently the last announced Disney movie to be getting that treatment.

Likewise, Warner Bros. announced that its 2021 movie slate would debut on HBO Max and in theaters on the same day. When the move was announced at the end of 2020, some film creatives were not thrilled with the decision--namely Dune director Denis Villeneuve, who claimed he only learned his movie would be released on streaming through Warner Media's public announcement.

During its opening weekend, Black Widow earned $80 million at the domestic box office--along with an additional $60 million in Premier Access sales. The following week, though, theater revenue dropped 68% to just $26 million, a rather steep drop, especially for a Marvel Cinematic Universe film. Theater owners claimed this was due, in part, to people pirating the film following its digital release--a sentiment echoed in Johansson's lawsuit. "Millions of others who would have watched in the theatres will instead view the Picture on perfect digital pirated copies—-all made possible by Disney's decision to release the Picture 'day-and-date' on Disney+," the legal document reads. "Indeed, Black Widow was the No. 1 pirated title of the July 19 week, per the news site TorrentFreak."

Black Widow remains in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access for those who have yet to see it. The next Marvel movie, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, hits theaters on September 3. Beyond that, the Hawkeye series debuts on Disney+ on November 24.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 335 comments about this story
335 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

6471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

What an entitled and pathetic thing to do. Was the $15 million fee for the film not enough for her? Has this ruined her career? With all the bad things going on in the world all she can think about is her bank balance and how to increase it. *SMH*

Disclaimer: I don't like Disney either whose greed is similar to this pretentious madame's.

5 • 
Avatar image for smcaudata
smcaudata

92

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gotrekfabian: she had a contract and Disney violated it. They probably made more through Disney plus while she made less. Explain how this is right.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

6471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

@smcaudata: No, this is more a case of there being a loophole and she intends to exploit it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clockworkengine
clockworkengine

583

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gotrekfabian: Send me an email, I have a contract offer for you. Easy money for me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

6471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

@clockworkengine: Pay me $15 million for 6 months and I promise I won't sue you because of a loophole.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Addict187
Addict187

1128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Addict187

@gotrekfabian: Nice one comparing you to her, you are a nobody, she is a somebody. You die tomorrow a few dozen people notice. She dies tomorrow every news site and gaming site plus the radio and tv will report about her death .

Upvote • 
Avatar image for monkyby87
monkyby87

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gotrekfabian: Ah yes, the inevitable poster that thinks they’re better than everyone else.

3 • 
Avatar image for gotrekfabian
gotrekfabian

6471

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 66

User Lists: 0

@monkyby87: 'Not better than anyone, I simply believe that entering into litigation when you already have amassed a fortune purely to gain more money from a loophole in a contract is unethical.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

8018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jenovaschilld

@gotrekfabian: Me and my brother starting working at a strip bar as door men/ bouncers when I was just 19. For those two years I saw a LOT of different women come and go through one of the roughest towns and jobs there is. One universal thing I learned from them... "Don't do anything unless you get paid, and make sure you get your money"

Through my career I have never had a problem asking for a raise, making sure I got the bonuses, overtime pay, uniform pay, any kind of pay... because brother I won't leave $50 million on the table no matter how much they threw at me out of their good will. Make sure you get yours.

4 • 
Avatar image for aichon
Aichon

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gotrekfabian: So you don't believe in integrity and accountability? If someone signs a contract saying "we promise not to do X" because X will cause a lot of harm to the other party, they shouldn't be allowed to do X. Simple as that.

Marvel promised theatrical exclusivity and a cut of the box office in the contract. They even acknowledged they'd need to renegotiate the contract if they wanted to release the film elsewhere. Disney then made the decision to release the film elsewhere.

Also, who made you (or any of us) the judge of when someone makes "enough" that they have no right to complain? Many of us live in the developed world, meaning we're likely fortunate enough to be making more money than something like 90% of people on earth. If your employer doesn't pay you the salary you're owed according to your contract with them, are you being "entitled and pathetic" if you demand that they abide by the contract?

7 • 
Avatar image for bdrtfm
BDRTFM

6737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@gotrekfabian: So if someone screwed you out of tens of millions of dollars they were contractually obligated to give you, you'd just let it go? Somehow I doubt that.

10 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-611611d19b9ca
deactivated-611611d19b9ca

1369

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@gotrekfabian: You could not possibly be more wrong. It wouldn’t matter if she was paid $50 million up front. If your contract states that you’re getting a certain percentage, and you were guaranteed a certain theatrical release before any streaming would occur, then you are, by definition, entitled to money you would’ve made during the period it was supposed to exclusively be in theaters. This has nothing to do with her wanting more. This is essentially theft. They robbed her of profits, by putting this movie on Disney+. Many of the people who watched it on there would’ve gone to a theater to see it if they didn’t have the streaming option.

I dare you to sign a contract with someone and let the person do something to cut you out of profits you were entitled to.

8 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@gotrekfabian: Nope, not this time. If her contract stated her claim explicitly, then she is entitled to it. And if Disney really did release the movie anyway with the hope of renegotiating her after (the ask forgiveness, not permission tactic), then Disney is definitely in the wrong.

10 • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@gotrekfabian: Enough for her: what the contract says she's supposed to get, not a penny less or a penny more. It's called getting the benefit of your bargain. If it says exclusive, she's entitled to exclusive, not Disney pulling in back-door revenue that lessens her cut both by breaking the "exclusivity" of the movie theater release and by stupidly handing intertubes pirates new booty.

12 • 
Avatar image for jedijax
jedijax

679

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Oh god, this is so rich!

2 • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By xNSHD

she will lose this case. reason being, disney have better lawyers. also say goodbye to ever playing the character again and getting way more money than you would for any film you will ever do in the future.

just be happy you earn millions for what you do.

3 • 
Avatar image for monkyby87
monkyby87

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: this post is one of the most ignorant posts I’ve seen in a while.

2 • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By xNSHD

@monkyby87: do i win a prize?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: Disney even states in their official response that they hoped to renegotiate with her later. Disney is definitely not going to win this one if Scarlet's claims are true.

4 • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Barighm: Disney will either win or settle out of court. Either way Scarlett's career will take a hit one way or the other because you don't mess with the House of Mouse. As much as I despise Disney the company in general they are quite powerful in the industry these days unfortunately given just how many companies and IP's they own now. You can imagine the influence they have in business in regards to helping or destroying careers.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@ironhorse89: Nope. Too high on the A-list and far too much draw to let it color future dealings. Of course, she seems to be getting done with playing BW, so who knows when they will work together again. She may come out of this being the one not wanting to work with Disney, as opposed to vice versa.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@Barighm: case wont even go to court.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: Do you have any idea how funny us real attorneys find you Fisher Price briefcase interwebs lawyers to be?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@esqueejy: What's a "real attorney" doing here on a gaming website? Slumming with the hoi polloi?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@ironhorse89: Contrary to popular belief, we have interests outside of work, just like everyone else.

And my comment had nothing to do with classism. It had to do with people who don't know WTF they are talking about pretending to know WTF they are talking about.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@esqueejy: By all means regale us lowly folk with some of your "real attorney" wisdom then.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@ironhorse89: Pretty sure I provided clear, coherent and understandable explanations below, Captain Insecurity.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@esqueejy: "Insecurity." That's funny coming from a pompous internet keyboard warrior. Jog on.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@ironhorse89: Want a tissue?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@esqueejy: Again, jog on.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: couldn't care less dude. case wont even go to court.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: Probably not. Disney will settle and she'll get a big fat check because they screwed up.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: disney will offer her less than what she allegedly was going to get and if she doesn't accept will happily go to court and keep this going through the motions in court for years which lets be real SJ doesn't want.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: Nope. Waste of money and would do brand/reputational damage worth more than what she's asking. I think it will settle...and by the nature of "settlement" that means both parties meet in the middle somewhere and maybe don't get everything they want....but Disney is bluffing with their press releases, especially the totally offensive nonsense they pulled trying to attack her as being insensitive to the COVID epidemic and her fans' safety, a totally bogus claim that will backfire in terms of public opinion. In the end, Disney won't play hardball, but it may bluster publicly.

SJ has a pretty good argument on the language of the contract and a great argument based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the latter being well supported by a slew of other contracts having been renegotiated in the industry to address this very issue. Agreeing with someone that they get a cut of movie release revenue as an inducement to get them to sign the contract, and then making an end-run around it with streaming services is the very definition of bad faith and it may even support a claim of fraud in the inducement if discovery turns up any evidence that they intended to do it to her all along.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@esqueejy: thats if what she says is true i find it hard to believe disney wouldn't have some fine print somewhere for this type of thing.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for esqueejy
esqueejy

4974

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By esqueejy

@xnshd: I don't think they did, and the problem isn't that it was a contract with Disney. It was apparently a contract with Marvel and she is accusing Disney of interfering with that contract by forcing the release to be both movie theaters and streaming service. It's called "interference with advantageous contractual relations" when a third party outside the contract induces a party to the contract to breach it....adds another layer of complexity to the mess. Again, I think this settles for something she'll be more than happy to put in her account, and the industry seems to be getting wise to the issue, so future contracts will no doubt address it more directly.

ETA: This quote is what's known as an admission, and it's downright murderous to Disney and Marvel trying to play games here...

"We totally understand that Scarlett's willingness to do the film and her whole deal is based on the premise that the film would be widely theatrically released like our other pictures. We understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with you and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses."

They are admitting that the inducement to form the contract and that her expectations in entering it were entirely based on exclusive theatrical release. They are also admitting that coming to an understanding about that would be a requirement if their release plans changed. This is basically an admission that coming to that understanding would be what is required to maintain the good faith and fair dealing all contracts impliedly mandate. They then didn't do it. OOPS.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for monkyby87
monkyby87

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: you should care, because you look like the biggest idiot on this site right now. And that’s saying something.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@monkyby87: i should care about some person who claims to be a lawyer on the internet? why?

2 • 
Avatar image for ronison123
ronison123

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ronison123

@xnshd: yep that definitely how contracts work. thats why every contract starts with "we have more money than you and thus non of the clauses below have any meaning, anyway you should just be thankful for us giving you any money at all since youre filthy rich to begin with"

3 • 
Avatar image for xnshd
xNSHD

3145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@ronison123: something tells me disney is smarter than scarlett and have some clause in the contract that they can use in court (it wont get to court by the way) to win the case.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for caiphascain
CaiphasCain

50

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@ronison123: The point is we would have had to keep waiting for the movie oooon and oooon because of this damn pandemic >.<

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ronison123
ronison123

43

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@caiphascain: so disney shouldve negotiated a different deal with scarlet instead of just breaking contract.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bigdavex
BigDaveX

142

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@xnshd: Chances are the case'll never even get to court, she and Disney will come to some kind of settlement, and Disney will take more care when it comes to drawing up contracts in the future (not that this scenario is something they could have reasonably foreseen, anyway).

Besides, I don't think she wanted to play the character again anyway. And even if she did, Disney wouldn't stand in her way if they thought it'd make them money - they had to threaten to sue Natalie Portman to get her back for Thor: The Dark World, and she still came back for Endgame and now the next Thor movie.

7 • 
Avatar image for zmanbarzel
ZmanBarzel

3163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@bigdavex: Yep, a lot of people think these lawsuits are personal. They're just business. Suing Paramount in the late '70s of "Star Trek" money didn't keep Leonard Nimoy from working with them on six big-screen movies and a beloved TNG two-parter, nor did his lawsuit againt Fox keep David Duchovny from returning for the "X-Files" (then) series finale, a second movie and two "reunion" limited series.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ironhorse89
ironhorse89

1331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@zmanbarzel: If you make money for those studios then those cases usually work out. In the case of someone like that idiot Ray Fisher and his ongoing beef with WB it's not going to work out for him because he's a nobody and WB made squat off of him and that disaster that was Justice League.

Upvote •