The Walt Disney Company filed an amended federal lawsuit Monday, claiming that recent actions taken by the Florida Legislature were a continuation of a "targeted campaign" of retaliation against the company after former CEO Bob Chapek criticized the "Parental Rights in Education" bill, dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by its detractors.

The suit charges that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis "orchestrated at every step" a plan to punish the company over what it claims is protected speech, adding that the campaign "threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights."

As alleged punishment for criticizing the Parental Rights in Education act, DeSantis took over Disney World’s self-governing district, formerly known as the the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and appointed a new board of supervisors that would oversee municipal services in the sprawling theme parks. But before the new board came in, the company pushed through an agreement that stripped the new supervisors of much of their authority.

Disney argues in its amended lawsuit that Senate Bill 1604, which was passed and signed into law last week, would allow the repeal of board agreements in independent special districts if one is signed within three months of a board takeover. The language of the bill carries a level of specificity that would allow it to apply to contracts signed by only one company, Disney, which shows it was a targeted action, the amended lawsuit says.

Gov. Ron DeSantis and Spring Hill Republican Sen. Blaise Ingoglia announced the plan the led to the passage of SB 1604 in April at an Orlando press conference.

“You are not going to win this fight,” Ingoglia said of the dispute with Disney. “This governor will.”

Disney's amended lawsuit cited Ingoglia's quote while arguing that state legislators were overt in the message they were using the bill to send to the company.

"[Disney] chose to break the law, and now we have to come back and re-write it one more time so that other special districts don't follow that bad example," the lawsuit quotes state Rep. Toby Overdorf as saying from the House floor on May 3.

Likewise, the amended suit also quoted Rep. William Robinson Jr., who directly tied the legislation to the contract Disney made with the outgoing board: "Two of my most terrifying words are 'lame duck.' And that's really what we're dealing with here. A lame duck board that is saddling a new board with obligations. ... This development agreement has saddled the new board with obligations that the old board in a lame duck session was doing."

The passage of the bill shows that "DeSantis and his allies have no apparent intent to moderate their retaliatory campaign any time soon," the amended lawsuit said.

The suit continued, noting an amendment added to a transportation bill (House Bill 1305) that would give the state the ability to regulate, and even shut down, Disney's monorail system. 

"In what has now become a familiar practice, the proposed amendment was precision-engineered to target Disney alone, just as Governor DeSantis intended and previewed — imposing state oversight over only those private monorail systems located 'within an independent special district created by local act which have boundaries within two contiguous counties," the lawsuit said. "Disney is the only company affected by House Bill 1305."

In the largest addition to the lawsuit Disney originally filed on April 26, the company pointed to statements made by DeSantis on May 5 during a press conference commemorating the end of the Legislative session that it claimed bolstered the argument of retaliation by the state.

After being asked about the Reedy Creek situation, DeSantis "admitted: "[T]his all started, of course, with our parents' rights bill."

"In a separate interview that same day, Governor DeSantis trumpeted the unequivocal intent and perceived success of his retribution campaign: 'Since our skirmish last year, Disney has not been involved in any of those issues. They have not made a peep. That, ultimately, is the most important, that Disney is not allowed to pervert the system to the detriment of Floridians," the amended lawsuit said.

Original Lawsuit

In filing its lawsuit on April 26, Disney said the decision to pursue legal action against DeSantis and the members of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board was not made lightly.

"Disney regrets that it has come to this," the filing reads. "But having exhausted efforts to seek a resolution, the Company is left with no choice but to file this lawsuit to protect its cast members, guests, and local development partners from a relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials."

The dispute with Disney has drawn significant criticism from the governor’s White House rivals and business leaders who view it as an extraordinary rejection of the small-government tenets of conservatism.

The fight began last year after Disney, in the face of significant pressure, publicly opposed a state law that baned classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity through third grade, a policy critics called “Don’t Say Gay.” 

"Governor DeSantis and his allies paid no mind to the governing structure that facilitated Reedy Creek’s successful development until one year ago, when the Governor decided to target Disney," the complaint reads. "There is no room for disagreement about what happened here: Disney expressed its opinion on state legislation and was then punished by the State for doing so."

"Governor DeSantis announced that Disney’s statement had 'crossed the line' — a line evidently separating permissible speech from intolerable speech — and launched a barrage of threats against the Company in immediate response," the suit continues. "Since then, the Governor, the State Legislature, and the Governor’s handpicked local government regulators have moved beyond threats to official action, employing the machinery of the State in a coordinated campaign to damage Disney’s ability to do business in Florida."

"State leaders have not been subtle about their reasons for government intervention," the suit reads. "They have proudly declared that Disney deserves this fate because of what Disney said. This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see."

In a statement to Spectrum News, DeSantis' office says that it is "unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state."

"This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law," the statement from the Florida governor's office continues.

During a recent meeting, members of the DeSantis-appointed board said Disney’s move to retain control over their property was effectively unlawful and performed without proper public notice.

“Disney picked the fight with this board. We were not looking out for a fight,” said Martin Garcia, chair of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, adding “bottom line, what our lawyers have told us, is factually and legally what they created is an absolute legal mess. It will not work."

Disney has said all agreements made with the previous board were legal and approved in a public forum. Disney CEO Bob Iger has also said that any actions against the company that threaten jobs or expansion at its Florida resort was not only “anti-business” but “anti-Florida.”

"Disney finds itself in this regrettable position because it expressed a viewpoint the Governor and his allies did not like," the complaint says. "Disney wishes that things could have been resolved a different way. But Disney also knows that it is fortunate to have the resources to take a stand against the State’s retaliation — a stand smaller businesses and individuals might not be able to take when the State comes after them for expressing their own views. In America, the government cannot punish you for speaking your mind."

The lawsuit asks the court to declare Senate Bill 1604 "unlawful and unenforceable," and issue an order preventing it from being enforced. It also seeks to undo the Legislative actions passed to give the state control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

Read the full text of the amended complaint below.