It might be reversed.
It might stand.
Or it might open an FTC or antitrust mess for Disney for bundling and/or anticompetitive measures.
Redbox is unbundling combo packs because Disney refused to license the movies to them at any price. And with Disney preparing two streaming services built around those movies...
On tbe Redbox side, there is precedent: Blockbusters and the entire video rental business started out off consumer videos. It was years before WB introduced lower priced videos for sale (with the first Tim Burton BATMAN movie) and when that sold tons other studios introduced the dual pricing scheme into the shrink wrap license.
But that has never been tested in court.
And First Sale doctrine arose out of a similar case with books, when NY publishers tried to control resale pricing of books using copyright and "licensing" language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobb..._Co._v._Straus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firs...ine#Exceptions!
The restrictions on software and music (but not audiobooks) are explicit exceptions granted by Congress. Video does not have such an explicit exemption in current law.
Redbox can argue that Disney is asking the judge to usurp congressional power and create an exemption for video that Congress has failed to provide.
So Engadget has it right: can of worms.
It is not a given that Redbox is going to lose.
The most likely outcome is an out of court settlement where Disney licenses to Redbox and they don't need to use commercial bundles.