Disney Sues FCC, Claims Victimhood Over Routine License Review
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Disney and ABC allege the FCC's standard license renewal process is an attack on their editorial freedom, as the network seeks to avoid scrutiny of its hiring and programming practices.
Attorneys for Disney and its ABC television network filed a lawsuit in August, attempting to block the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing an order that would require the company to submit early renewal applications for eight local station licenses. In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, Disney’s legal team portrayed the FCC’s order—issued by chair Brendan Carr—as a punitive measure, claiming it was designed to silence the network’s so-called 'speech.'
"These are blatant violations of the US constitution," argued trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson, even asserting that ABC had already changed its programming to avoid supposed retaliation, such as limiting political guests on daytime shows and moving a candidate interview to YouTube.
The FCC, however, maintained that the early renewal request is a standard procedure, entirely unrelated to editorial content, and part of a legitimate investigation into Disney’s hiring practices. FCC counsel Dimitar P. Georgiev pointed out that the case should be heard in a different court and that the license review is a tool to ensure compliance with equal-opportunity regulations—not to target ABC’s editorial decisions.
Judge AliKhan questioned why the commission opted for early renewal rather than other enforcement actions, and noted inconsistencies in the FCC’s stated reasons, including the separation of the diversity, equity, and inclusion inquiry from the licensing bureau. She ended the hearing without a ruling, saying she would consider the arguments further. The case highlights Disney’s ongoing efforts to evade accountability while playing the victim.