DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

[RivShore]

launching a promotion for any users effected by the blackout to give them access to ESPN+ / Hulu, whatever, for 75% of whatever YoutubeTV gave their users back.

I would think that could open up Disney to price discrimination issues since YT would not be able to compete with such a low price.

 

[RivShore]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...ob-iger-successors-legacy-podcast-1236420559/

Bob Iger Has Some Advice For His Successors

The Disney CEO reflected on his time running the company, and gave some guidance for whomever follows him, on the latest episode of the podcast 'The Rest is History.'

by Alex Weprin
November 6, 2025 - 5:15pm PST

The Rest is History has a few episodes, preceding the Bob show, that go into depth on the history of Walt and the company. Highly recommended listen. There's also some videos on YT...

 

[irlandaise]

]

Disney is making a major misstep here. YoutubeTV is offering credits to it's users while content is unavailable. Disney should have been ready to go, launching a promotion for any users effected by the blackout to give them access to ESPN+ / Hulu, whatever, for 75% of whatever YoutubeTV gave their users back.

I would think that could open up Disney to price discrimination issues since YT would not be able to compete with such a low price.

Discrimination against whom?

 

[wabbott]

https://www.thewrap.com/youtube-tv-20-dollar-credits-customers-disney-blackout/

YouTube TV Will Issue $20 Credits to Customers Who Experience Disney Blackout

Subscribers to the online streaming service have been unable to access Disney channels since October 30

by Stephanie Kaloi
November 8, 2025 @ 3:31 PM PST

 

[RivShore]

]


Discrimination against whom?

Severely undercutting the price that you offer distributers could open them up to a few legal issues. Per Gemini AI:

• Predatory pricing: If the producer sells at a price below its own costs with the intent to eliminate competition and then plans to raise prices to a monopolistic level, it could be considered illegal predatory pricing.
• Illegal agreements: If the producer works with other distributors to unfairly target one distributor with low prices, this could be an illegal conspiracy or restraint of trade.
• Discrimination concerns: Pricing differences could be illegal if they violate specific laws like theRobinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination between competing purchasers, although this is a complex area of law.

 

[wabbott]

https://deadline.com/2025/11/youtube-tv-disney-blackout-monday-night-football-1236612102/

Could ‘Monday Night Football’ Help End YouTube TV-Disney Carriage Fight?

By Dade Hayes - Business Editor
November 9, 2025 - 11:09am PST

 

[PsylockeSmythe]

Correct me if I am wrong but if users wanted Disney or ESPN channels they could easily just cancel with Youtube and subscribe with Fubo or Disney Hulu+Live option? It is literally the click of a few buttons.

You are not wrong, but the as someone said earlier, you lose everything that you had previously recorded if you move.

Also, from my understanding the DVR feature of Fubo or Hulu+live is nowhere as good as what YouTube TV offers (I'm not sure if it has improved since I last looked in streaming services). Fubo is also missing TNT, TBS and TruTV (shows March Madness BB games), so if college BB and March Madness is important then Fubo is not a good option. Hulu+live does have those channels though.

YouTube TV Will Issue $20 Credits to Customers Who Experience Disney Blackout

Yep I received an e-mail last night informing me that I will receive another e-mail within the next few days that tell me how to claim the $20 credit. I would prefer for them to just do it automatically and feel that it is cheesy having the customer have to claim the credit.

Psy

 

[Fullchaos]

Severely undercutting the price that you offer distributers could open them up to a few legal issues. Per Gemini AI:

• Predatory pricing: If the producer sells at a price below its own costs with the intent to eliminate competition and then plans to raise prices to a monopolistic level, it could be considered illegal predatory pricing.
• Illegal agreements: If the producer works with other distributors to unfairly target one distributor with low prices, this could be an illegal conspiracy or restraint of trade.
• Discrimination concerns: Pricing differences could be illegal if they violate specific laws like theRobinson-Patman Act, which prohibits certain forms of price discrimination between competing purchasers, although this is a complex area of law.

IANAL - but I'd be surprised if offering ESPN+ Unlimited / Disney+ at 50% off during the contract dispute would qualify under these.

Still - it's worth noting that according to Gemini (who is also NAL):

The most significant legal hurdle is that the Robinson-Patman Act only applies to the sale of "commodities"—tangible goods or products (like groceries, electronics, or raw materials).

• ESPN+ and Hulu are digital streaming services and intangible property. Courts have consistently ruled that the sale of advertising, broadcasting time, cable television, and other digital or communication services are not commodities under the Act.
• Therefore, a differential price (discount) for these services is outside the scope of the Robinson-Patman Act itself.

I agree if they provided Hulu with Live TV at that price you might have some issue on a predatory standpoint though. But even then, you'd need to prove that the price point is below cost or to eliminate competition. Given how Hollywood accounting works, this would take years, and the lost legal fees are probably more than the revenue for both parties.

 

[Brian Noble]

I don't give a whole lot of weight to legal advice from generative AI.

The most obvious TWDC competitor is Fubo. The most comparable channel line up is not cheaper, and probably won't be. But there is a sports-focused tier that is about 2/3ds the price.

 

[RivShore]

IANAL - but I'd be surprised if offering ESPN+ Unlimited / Disney+ at 50% off during the contract dispute would qualify under these.

Still - it's worth noting that according to Gemini (who is also NAL):



I agree if they provided Hulu with Live TV at that price you might have some issue on a predatory standpoint though. But even then, you'd need to prove that the price point is below cost or to eliminate competition. Given how Hollywood accounting works, this would take years, and the lost legal fees are probably more than the revenue for both parties.

IANAL either (though reviewing contracts to ensure proper business terms is part of my job function) and I agree that it would probably not be worth the legal fees to pursue something like this but, I think my main point was, why would Disney even open themselves up to the possibility just to gain a few subs, especially given their other distributors would immediately feel under threat of predatory pricing undercuts.

Disney, and really all the legacy streamers, have put themselves in this in-between world where they want to be direct sellers of their content and also get paid by distributors for that same stuff. Makes for a potential mess and was probably the thinking behind those old laws restricting movie studios from owning theaters.

 

[wabbott]

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/warner-bros-discovery-ceo-david-170032474.html

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav Meets With Comcast Chief Brian Roberts as Sale Talks Ramp Up
The meeting comes as Comcast is exploring a potential bid for WBD's studio and streaming assets

by Lucas Manfredi - The Wrap
Mon, November 10, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. CST