Skip to main content

Edge's News: Scarlett Johansson Sues Disney for Breach of Contract Over ‘Black Widow’ Release

Disney’s decision to release “Black Widow” on Disney Plus at the same time it hit theatres has sparked a legal battle with Scarlett Johansson, the actress tasked with playing the Marvel superhero.

Marvels Black Widow


In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys for Johansson allege that the star’s contract was breached when the studio opted not to debut the film exclusively in theaters, a move they claim depressed ticket sales for the Avengers spinoff. Much of Johansson’s compensation was tied to the box office performance of “Black Widow” — if it hit certain benchmarks, bonuses would kick in.


“Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realising the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel,” the suit reads.


Disney announced in March that “Black Widow”  would premiere simultaneously on the studio’s subscription-based streaming service, for a premium $30 price, as well as on the big screen. The move was made as the movie theatre industry was rebounding from COVID-19 closures and capacity restrictions. 


On July 9, “Black Widow” set a pandemic-era box office record with its $80 million debut in North America and earned an additional $78 million overseas. It also pulled in $60 million on Disney Plus. Ticket sales steeply declined in subsequent weeks and currently stand at $319 million globally, putting “Black Widow” on track to become one of the lowest-grossing Marvel movies of all time.


Shortly after its debut, the National Association of Theatre Owners, the industry’s main trade organisation, asserted the simultaneous release of “Black Widow” in theaters and on streaming “costs Disney money in revenue per viewer over the life of the film.”


However, the suit notes that Disney’s stock rose after the company disclosed the rental figures.

“Disney chose to placate Wall Street investors and pad its bottom line, rather than allow its subsidiary Marvel to comply with the agreement,” the suit reads. ” To no one’s surprise, Disney’s breach of the Agreement successfully pulled millions of fans away from the theatres and toward its Disney+ streaming service.”


The Wall Street Journal, which broke the news of the lawsuit, reports that sources close to Johansson estimate that the decision to release the film concurrently on Disney Plus resulted in $50 million in lost bonuses.


Johansson’s legal salvo comes as new distribution paradigms and the COVID-19 pandemic are reshaping the way that A-list actors are paid for their work. Many top actors include backend profit participation as part of their contracts. But the rise of streaming services, such as Netflix, has removed those forms of compensation and the decision by traditional movie studios, like Warner Bros. and Disney, to release films on their own in-house subscription services has further upended these old ways of doing business. 


When Warner Bros. opted to send its entire film slate to HBO Max, realising that movie theaters were only operating at limited capacity for much of the year, the studio had to pay tens of millions of dollars to the stars of those films. That resulted in actors such as Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and Keanu Reeves earning their full back-end on the movies that Warner Bros. released on its new service. 


If successful, Johansson’s suit could embolden more actors to seek additional compensation for films that migrated to streaming services and may lead to agents including stricter language in contracts regarding compensation if an exclusive theatrical release is compromised or bypassed. Johansson’s attorneys suggested that her suit could be a precedent setter.


“It’s no secret that Disney is releasing films like Black Widow directly onto Disney Plus to increase subscribers and thereby boost the company’s stock price – and that it’s hiding behind Covid-19 as a pretext to do so,” John Berlinski, an attorney for Johansson, said in a statement to Variety. “But ignoring the contracts of the artists responsible for the success of its films in furtherance of this short-sighted strategy violates their rights and we look forward to proving as much in court. 


This will surely not be the last case where Hollywood talent stands up to Disney and makes it clear that, whatever the company may pretend, it has a legal obligation to honour its contracts.”


Johansson legal team said that representatives for the actress were worried that “Black Widow” would debut on Disney Plus even before coronavirus brought life to a standstill. As part of the suit, they share emails from the star’s management group that asked the studio to guarantee that “Black Widow” would premiere exclusively in cinemas. 


In response, Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi promised a traditional theatrical bow, while adding “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.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...