Disney and Central Florida Tourism Oversight District propose a settlement agreement bringing lawsuits to an end

Mar 27, 2024 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Wednesday March 27, 2024 10:10am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

The board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has announced that the Walt Disney Company and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District have proposed a settlement agreement that will potentially see both sides drop their respective lawsuits.

The critical points of the agreement from Disney's perspective are that the district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney, and that the subsequent negotiations for the new development agreement are linked to Disney pursuing or halting its federal lawsuit against CFTOD and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

The highlights of the agreement as presented by CFTOD litigation counsel Paul Huck include:

  • The development agreement and restrictive covenants previously under lawsuit are to be considered null and void.
  • Disney will not challenge the district's view that certain comprehensive plans and land development regulations adopted in January of the previous year are invalid, recognizing the 2020 Comprehensive Plan as the current operative plan.
  • The district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney and other relevant parties.
  • Both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice the claims and counterclaim in the ongoing state court lawsuit.
  • Disney will also dismiss with prejudice a separate state court litigation regarding public records and withdraw its pending public records request.
  • The labor services agreement between the district and the Reedy Creek energy services would be amended so that the term would expire in 2028 rather than 2032, and its automatic renewal provisions removed.
  • Disney asserts ownership of certain long-term mitigation credits, with the district agreeing not to interfere with their use. These credits stem from permits issued by multiple agencies, with Disney having funded their creation.
  • Concerning a federal court case Disney filed, which is currently on appeal, both parties will seek to defer briefing on the appeal while negotiating a new development agreement.
  • Both entities agree not to contest each other's actions prior to a specific date, with certain exceptions related to the content of the settlement agreement and potential defenses in the federal lawsuit.
  • Finally, the agreement includes mutual releases by both parties.

The agreement appears to be an abrupt change in direction from Disney, which, as recently as January, said, "This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here. If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case."

In a brief statement this morning, Walt Disney World President Jeff Valle said, "We are pleased to put an end to all litigation pending in state court in Florida between Disney and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. This agreement opens a new chapter of constructive engagement with the new leadership of the district and serves the interests of all parties by enabling significant continued investment and the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and economic opportunity in the State."

Speaking at today's CFTOD board meeting, vice chair Charbel Barakat said, "We are eager to work with Disney. I'm certainly eager to work with Disney and all other businesses to make the country's tourism destination famous for a second reason, which is good government. I'd like to thank publicly thank the district's general counsel for their Herculean efforts on this front as well as our as well as our outside counsel."

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

    View all comments →

    mkt9 days ago

    The free speech claim was federal, the land use claim was state.

    mikejs789 days ago

    The federal case was not predicated on FL free speech law, it was based around 1st amendment jurisprudence and the US Constitution contract clause. The state case was based around state law but not speech state law.

    Bullseye19679 days ago

    I am not sure of the actual filing and I will admit that I am too lazy to look through all the filings you posted, Thank you, but I think it was a claim on FL law and not Federal. The Sol on "free speech" in FL is 3 years, but it is not limited in USC, And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

    JoeCamel11 days ago

    Saved them a bunch of cash

    Chi8411 days ago

    The State was happy with the way things were. For many, many years.

    mikejs7811 days ago

    My gut says that beginning in 2027 there will be legislation that slowly picks away at CFTOD and gradually returns control to Disney. It won't happen all at once - but I bet it will happen.

    Chi8411 days ago

    There's a battle being lost, but it's not really a PR battle and it only tangentially involves Disney.

    mkt11 days ago

    You’re right that there wasn’t a massive public rally to defend Disney. At least not in the way we often see with political figures or causes. But that doesn’t mean they lost the PR battle. It just means they played it differently. They didn’t need cheering crowds. They let the state’s actions speak for themselves. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether intentional or not - ended up being the loudest statement. Thousands of high-paying jobs. Gone. Local business groups noticed. Real estate noticed. Economists noticed. That stuck. Meanwhile, the “win” Florida claimed was largely symbolic - swapping one board for another - while Disney kept building, kept expanding, and retained the infrastructure and bond authority they needed. The machine never stopped. And let’s not forget: the only only people visibly waving flags on the property line during this entire episode? They were on the state’s side, and those flags bore symbols we all agree have no place in a civilized society. So no - Disney didn’t lose the PR war. They just didn’t fight it with soundbites. They let time and economic impact do the talking.

    flynnibus11 days ago

    Who came to defend Disney? Who lined up to call out DeSantis' action? Who lined up to point out the cabel action in the Legislature? Who used Disney as an example of what can happen? I'm not talking about who wrote stories to cover the news.. I'm talking about who put their name on the line to call out the injustice that was happening? How many people did you hear regurgitating the false propoganda about taxes? How many people did you hear thinking this RCID thing was some long running scam that was time to go? I'm talking about who the gen pop saw as in the wrong... most did not flock to defend Disney... they saw it as some corporate scam that finally was being taken down.. Disney was pretty much the target of the most direct, blatant, outright cheered political driven retribution I can think of in any recent memory... and the gen pop thinks DeSantis was eliminating corporate benefits and DEI non-sense. That's the PR battle Disney lost.

    Prince-111 days ago

    Oh Ronnie didn't need Disney's help to accomplish that. He was never going to be president.

    MR.Dis11 days ago

    Disney won in one respect, this incident totally destroyed a certain Govenors hope of ever being seen as Presidential material.

    mkt11 days ago

    That’s a fair framing if you’re evaluating from a strictly structural standpoint Yes, Disney no longer controls the board, and yes, they negotiated toward a new normal rather than scorched-earth resistance. But to say they “lost the PR battle”? I strongly disagree. Florida came off as punitive, erratic, and willing to jeopardize thousands of high-paying jobs over a political tantrum. The Lake Nona cancellation - whether coincidental or not - felt like fallout, and perception did the heavy lifting. That loss is now linked to the state’s actions. No press release needed. Florida is viewed as having cost the region several thousand high earners, along with their housing demand, business growth, and tax revenue. That’s not just bad optics. That’s third-world-level policy sabotage. Meanwhile, Disney kept building. The board that was supposed to rein them in greenlit a $17B expansion. Bond authority stayed. Infrastructure control stayed. Functionally, nothing stopped. Sure, the expansion brings jobs. But they're mostly tourism and hospitality roles. These aren't six-figure white collar transfers — they're hourly park positions. Florida traded a long-term white-collar boom for a short-term PR win and a few more popcorn carts. That’s not a victory. That’s a downgrade. If anything, Disney let Florida win the headline, then quietly walked away with the outcome. That’s not “dealing with the devil.” That’s knowing when to let the devil shake his fist at a cloud while you pour the foundation for your next park expansion.

    LAKid5311 days ago

    Precisely

    UNCgolf11 days ago

    Indeed. And while I wish Disney had fought to the end, that was never likely. Publicly traded corporations just don't really operate that way. For example, I've represented corporate clients who had a good chance of prevailing against the government in regulatory investigations, but they would have spent more on the fight than they spent on the settlement -- so they settled. There's always going to be a cost/benefit analysis (which often involves more than just the potential legal fees) regardless of whether they think they're right. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons Harvard is more likely to fight to the end in their current litigation (although that's certainly not guaranteed). They don't have to worry about shareholders, although they do have some other outside concerns.