Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company
- Edward Davila
- 5:22-cv-07317
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 26
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Biddle v. The Walt Disney Company, Judge Davila compelled arbitration, dismissed class claims, and stayed individual claims.
Plaintiffs Unger and Prescott must pursue their individual claims in arbitration, and their putative class claims were dismissed; the case is stayed pending arbitration.
What happened
In Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company, plaintiffs Unger and Prescott alleged that Disney’s agreements with Fubo raised subscription prices and limited available channels.
Disney argued that Fubo’s terms required the plaintiffs to arbitrate individually and waived class claims. The plaintiffs argued mainly that Disney could not enforce an agreement it did not sign and that the arbitration terms were unfair.
Judge Davila granted Disney’s motion, compelled arbitration of the plaintiffs’ individual claims, dismissed the putative class claims, and stayed the case while arbitration proceeds. The court did not decide the underlying allegations about competition, prices, or channel packaging.
The detailed version
- Heather Biddle, et al. v. The Walt Disney Company · No. 5:22-cv-07317
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
The opinion states that plaintiffs Unger and Prescott sued The Walt Disney Company over alleged effects of Disney’s carriage agreements with Fubo, a live-television streaming service. Plaintiffs alleged that Disney’s requirement that Fubo package ESPN with other entertainment channels increased subscription prices and restricted the channels available to subscribers.
Fubo’s terms of service included a mandatory arbitration provision, a provision allowing future affiliates and agents to invoke Fubo’s contractual rights, and a waiver of class claims. The terms also allowed subscribers to opt out of the arbitration and class-waiver provisions by sending written notice within the specified period. The opinion states that Unger and Prescott did not opt out. Disney later acquired a controlling stake in Fubo and became a Fubo affiliate under the terms described in the opinion.
Parties’ Arguments
Disney asked the court to compel arbitration of Unger’s and Prescott’s individual claims, dismiss their putative class claims, and stay the case pending arbitration. The plaintiffs argued primarily that Disney was not a signatory to Fubo’s terms and therefore could not compel arbitration. They also argued that the arbitration agreement, its provision assigning arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, and the future-affiliates provision were unconscionable, meaning unfairly imposed or unreasonably one-sided. The plaintiffs separately requested limited discovery about what “future affiliates” meant when they agreed to the terms.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the online sign-up process gave the plaintiffs reasonably conspicuous notice of Fubo’s terms and that clicking the sign-up buttons showed unambiguous agreement. The court also found that Unger assented to updated terms by continuing to use Fubo after receiving an email describing the updates.
The court held that the future-affiliates provision clearly allowed a future Fubo affiliate involved in a dispute to invoke Fubo’s arbitration rights. It rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that Disney had to assume corresponding obligations, or that applying the provision here would create an absurd result. The court interpreted the broad reference to “any other product or service” as limited by the surrounding Fubo-related terms, so the provision covered disputes connected to Fubo’s streaming services rather than unrelated disputes.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery because the plaintiffs did not dispute that they agreed to the terms; their argument concerned Disney’s ability as a non-signatory to enforce the agreement. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ unconscionability challenges, finding no more than minimal procedural unfairness, no substantive unfairness, and an available 30-day opt-out process.
Disposition
The court granted Disney’s motion to compel arbitration as to Unger’s and Prescott’s individual claims. It granted Disney’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ putative class claims based on the enforceable class waiver. It granted Disney’s request to stay the action pending arbitration of the individual claims. The order does not resolve the underlying allegations concerning Disney’s conduct, subscription prices, or channel availability.
Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.