What started as a political controversy between a late-night host and his network has turned into one of the most consequential consumer backlashes in recent streaming-media history. When Disney suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” in September 2025 after host Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the backlash wasn’t confined to talk-shows and tabloids. Subscribers of Disney’s streaming platforms namely Disney+ and Hulu showed up in force. Now we have the hard numbers.
What exactly happened?
On September 17, the corporate parent of ABC, The Walt Disney Company, announced that Jimmy Kimmel’s show would be suspended indefinitely.
The move came amid mounting pressure from broadcast-affiliate owners such as Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group and regulatory threats made by Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr.
Within days, the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus began trending, public figures called for subscription cancellations, and some consumers claimed they were canceling not only streaming subscriptions but also skipping Disney parks and merchandise.
The magnitude of cancellations: the data speaks
Analytics firm Antenna provides the most detailed snapshot of the fallout:
-
Disney+ saw a cancellation or churn rate increase from ~4 % to ~8 % in September roughly 3 million cancellations.
-
Hulu’s churn similarly doubled: from ~5 % to ~10–11 %, with about 4.1 million cancellations.
-
Both platforms reportedly still had signup activity (Disney+ added ~2.2 million new users, Hulu ~2.1 million) in the same period, but the net flow and churn spikes marked an unusual distortion of the trend.
These numbers represent not just a bump in cancellations, but a significant, measurable boycott effect on major streaming services.
Why it matters
Brand & Public-Relations Risk
For Disney, a company built on consumer love and brand trust, public outrage this strong tied to the perception of censorship is particularly toxic. Support from high-profile actors, union leaders, and vocal communities amplified the backlash.
Economics of Streaming
Streaming-platform business models are sensitive to churn. A 4 % churn rate doubling to 8 % (or more) in a single month is alarming, particularly when paired with a price hike announcement for October that may reduce willingness to subscribe.
Cultural & Political Signal
The boycott wasn’t simply about one host or one network: it touched on free speech, corporate independence, and political pressure on media companies. That kind of alignment between culture and consumption makes the incident more than a typical PR hiccup.
What might come next
-
Retention efforts: Disney will likely lean harder on bundled offerings, added value (sports, originals), and retention campaigns to offset churn.
-
Pricing pressure: With voluntary churn rising, future pricing decisions may become more conservative or phased.
-
Content strategy shift: Some content may be designed or marketed in less politically charged ways to avoid fueling further boycotts.
-
Investor concerns: Large churn spikes raise questions for shareholders about subscription growth sustainability and corporate control of brand risk.
Yes the Disney+ boycott over the Jimmy Kimmel suspension is very real. Millions of subscriptions cancelled; churn rates doubled. And while the ultimate long-term damage remains to be seen (new sign-ups partially offset losses), the episode illustrates how modern consumers especially informed, vocal segments can mobilize quickly against perceived corporate mis-steps.
Disney isn’t alone among companies confronting this reality. But for a brand so heavily based on promise, magic, and family loyalty, the lesson is clear: cultural misalignment can cost more than content.
