1 day ago
1
YouTube has fired back at Disney, opposing Disney’s lawsuit attempting to block the video giant’s hiring of Justin Connolly, a former high-level media distribution exec for the Mouse House.
Last month, Connolly — after more than two decades at Disney and ESPN — quit to join YouTube as global VP of media and sports partnerships. Disney responded with a lawsuit against YouTube and Connolly, filed May 21 in California state court, alleging breach of contract, tortious interference in a contractual relationship and unfair competition.
YouTube now has filed its opposition to Disney’s lawsuit. “Disney asks this Court to specifically enforce defendant Justin Connolly’s purported ‘fixed term’ employment agreement, to issue a restraining order that would place Mr. Connolly out of work, and to preclude Mr. Connolly from working for the employer of his choice for years,” YouTube said in its reply, filed June 2 with the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Los Angeles.
In its filing, YouTube took issue with several of Disney’s allegations. According to the Disney lawsuit, Connolly had signed a three-year contract in November 2024, which his move to YouTube allegedly violates (as Connolly had a one-time right to terminate it for any reason effective March 1, 2027).
However, according to YouTube, Disney employed Connolly on an at-will basis. “Disney kept for itself (unilaterally) the absolute and unfettered right to fire Mr. Connolly at any time and for any reason without any obligation to Mr. Connolly,” YouTube said. An order requiring Connolly to either “return to Disney to work against his will and/or to quit his new position at YouTube” is “expressly prohibited by statute and other controlling California law,” according to YouTube’s filing.
YouTube also said Disney’s request for “emergency relief” is bogus because “Disney has known for over six weeks that Mr. Connolly intended to leave Disney and join YouTube.”
Connolly, who most recently was president of Disney Platform Distribution, oversaw all third-party media sales efforts for distribution, affiliate marketing and affiliate-related business operations — including with YouTube.
In a declaration filed with the court, Connolly said that in April 2025 — after disclosing to Disney his intent to accept YouTube’s offer — he stopped “leading or participating materially” in any of the current negotiations on the license renewal between Disney and YouTube. At the time, another Disney executive replaced him as the lead negotiator for the YouTube license (and other Disney executives have already taken over other ongoing negotiations for the company), per court filings.
In early April 2025, Google and Disney exchanged communications regarding Google’s desire to hire Connolly for the YouTube role, according to the YouTube filing. Disney asked for its renewal negotiations with YouTube — which would normally not begin until around August 2025 — to be “prioritized” by YouTube, according to the internet company. Rather than invoking Connolly’s contract that purportedly prevented him from exiting Disney to join YouTube, according to YouTube, “Disney made clear that it intends to use Mr. Connolly as a pawn to advance the renegotiation of its license renewal with YouTube.”
Google told Disney that it would be willing to move up the YouTube license renewal negotiations with Disney, but “could only do so if Mr. Connolly joined YouTube sooner rather than later” (because, Google said, the earlier Connolly joined YouTube and took over negotiations on contract agreements with other companies, the sooner YouTube would be able to free up its other employees to focus on Disney’s license renewal). According to YouTube, Disney did not respond to Google’s last communication and “did not offer Mr. Connolly any meaningful path to exit with Disney’s support.”
YouTube, in its reply to Disney’s lawsuit, essentially said Connolly is not the equivalent of a rock star or pro athlete.
YouTube argued that Connolly’s “work for Disney did not involve services that are special, unique or extraordinary,” the one area where a court may be permitted to enforce personal service contracts. Per the YouTube filing, the narrow exception for services of “special, unique, unusual, extraordinary or intellectual character” has been applied only to “contracts for the services of notable artists, performers and professional athletes.”
Regarding Connolly’s knowledge of Disney information, YouTube said that is “irrelevant.”
“Google/YouTube has made it clear to Disney that Mr. Connolly will not be involved in any capacity with YouTube’s license agreement negotiations with Disney,” YouTube said. In addition, YouTube’s offer letter to Connolly “demands that he continue to adhere to his confidentiality obligations to Disney, and confirms he cannot bring, use or disclose any of Disney’s confidential or proprietary information during his work at YouTube,” the YouTube filing said.
YouTube called the provision of Connolly’s employment agreement that purports to prohibit him from leaving Disney “unconscionable.” Per YouTube, that’s because “Disney demanded that Mr. Connolly sign it, Mr. Connolly was not represented by counsel, and Disney had overwhelming bargaining power as compared to Mr. Connolly.” In addition, Connolly’s employment agreement is “unconscionable” because “it purports to bind only Mr. Connolly to work for a period of time, while allowing Disney unfettered discretion to terminate Mr. Connolly’s employment for any reason at any time. Furthermore, there is no justification for the one-sided nature of the termination right in the Employment Agreement.”
The California state court hearing the case, which is captioned Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC vs. YouTube LLC et al., has scheduled a June 4 hearing on Disney’s application for a temporary restraining order to block Connolly’s hiring by YouTube.
English (US) ·