Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
The U.S. District Court in Connecticut ruled today in favor of a WWE motion that would halt discovery in the ongoing lawsuit against them, ESPN and BAMTech, LLC alleging that WWE misled customers about how to watch its major PPV/PLE events after it moved them to the ESPN Unlimited streaming platform as of WrestlePalooza 2025.
WWE had argued that Discovery, where the two sides are required to bring evidence and open up their records to each other, should be halted until the court rules on the existing attempts from the defendants to move the lawsuit to private arbitration.
ESPN and BAMTech, who were added to the lawsuit recently, have each claimed the suit should be moved to arbitration based on the plaintiffs each subscribing to the ESPN Unlimited service, therefore they would be falling under the terms of service for the streaming provider. Those claims matched the arguments that WWE had previously made, alleging that since the plaintiffs are subscribed to ESPN Unlimited, their claims should be governed under Disney/ESPN's arbitration clause in the legalese included when they subscribed to the service for WWE events.
The ruling noted, "The Court was concerned to read, in the Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, that WWE had been sanctioned for evidence spoliation in other cases. (likely the WWE stockholders case over the Endeavor purchase of WWE, which was recently set for settlement) But in this case, the appropriate way to address that concern is to remind WWE of the severe consequences that can be imposed if relevant evidence is lost or destroyed after the duty of preservation attaches. To force WWE to undergo the broad and burdensome discovery that the Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and their proposed class, when WWE evidently has a non-frivolous argument that those claims should be addressed in an arbitral forum on an individual basis and under potentially restrictive discovery procedures, would be a disproportionate response. While the Court understands the Plaintiffs’ concern, it is insufficient to deny a stay."
There is no time limit for the court to issue a ruling on whether the case will be moved to arbitration or not.
Plaintiff Michael Diesa, a New Jersey resident, is a cable customer who already paid over $100 per month for cable with ESPN and found he needed to upgrade his Disney streaming bundle so his child could watch WWE events. Plaintiff Rebella Toback, a New York resident, was a YouTube TV subscriber who had to paid $29.99 the day of a WWE event in order to access ESPN’s streaming service, then canceled after the event.
The lawsuit's core allegation is that statements from officials like WWE President Nick Khan and marketing and promotion from the company made it appear that anyone with an existing ESPN subscription to via their cable or satellite subscription would have access to the WWE events, but in many cases, fans needed to subscribe for $29.99 a month for the ESPN app. Obviously, ESPN had not come to terms with a number of providers to allow access at the time of WrestlePalooza 2025 and in some cases, that integration has since been added, while others are still being worked on currently.
Their original 32-page lawsuit alleges ESPN press releases stating the new app would be available to fans who subscribe “directly or through a traditional pay TV package.” It also cited Nick Khan stating on a podcast that, just like previous deals (likely WWE's old Peacock agreement), WWE’s events would come with “no upcharge” for subscribers. The claim is that this led to fans believing that if they already had ESPN access, they had automatic access to the WWE events without additional fees - but discovered otherwise and were required to sign up for the service.
Obviously, access depended on behind-the-scenes agreements between Disney (ESPN’s parent company) and individual TV providers. At the time, some services (Verizon Fios, DirecTV, Spectrum, and Hulu + Live TV) allowed customers to log into the ESPN app and watch the events. Others (such as Cox, Xfinity and YouTube TV at the time) did not at the time of launch, forcing customers to pay extra.
The class action lawsuit is for United States-based customers who paid for the ESPN App between 8/6/25 and 9/20/25 but had already been paying for ESPN through cable or a live TV streaming service. Anyone who had automatic access to the ESPN App through their cable or satellite providers by 9/20/25 would not be included.
The lawsuit has been seeking, "An award of actual, compensatory, and/or consequential damages, alternatively, an award of nominal damages (if and as necessary), an award of statutory damages (if and as permitted by law), an award of punitive damages (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(a) and/or as otherwise permitted by law, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this action (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(d) and/or as otherwise permitted by law, an award of the costs of this action (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(d) and/or as otherwise permitted by law), any injunctive relief necessary to preclude WWE from (a) continuing to violate CUTPA, (b) conspiring with ESPN to violate CUTPA, and/or (c) aiding and/or abetting ESPN in its violation(s) of CUTPA; and/or any other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate."
The plaintiffs have been seeking a jury trial.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
