The class-action lawsuit accusing WWE of misleading customers about access to premium live events on ESPN is heading back to court, and the next hearing could determine whether the case stays in front of a judge or gets pushed into private arbitration.
A hearing is scheduled for August 20 at 10:00 a.m. before the U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The court will consider motions from ESPN and BAMTech, the ESPN-owned company behind the streaming technology, asking to intervene in the lawsuit filed by Michael Diesa and Rebecca Toback.
The two plaintiffs claim WWE’s marketing made it appear that customers who already received ESPN through cable, satellite or a live television streaming service would get WWE events without paying another fee after the company moved its premium live events to ESPN’s new streaming platform beginning with WrestlePalooza 2025. In reality, access depended on whether Disney had reached an agreement with each provider, leaving some customers forced to pay $29.99 for ESPN Unlimited.
ESPN and BAMTech argue that because Diesa and Toback subscribed to ESPN Unlimited, the dispute falls under Disney and ESPN’s subscriber agreement, which contains a mandatory arbitration clause and blocks class-action claims. WWE is not a party to that agreement, but the companies argue WWE should still be allowed to force arbitration because the allegations are directly connected to its business relationship with ESPN.
“Diesa’s and Toback’s claims against WWE are independently subject to mandatory arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Although WWE is not a party to the Subscriber Agreement, non-signatories who have a commercial relationship with a signatory can compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel where the issues the nonsignatory is seeking to resolve in arbitration are intertwined with the agreement that the estopped party has signed.”
The filing argues that the claims against WWE cannot be separated from the ESPN subscription terms.
“Diesa’s and Toback’s claims against WWE raise issues that arise directly out of WWE’s commercial relationship with ESPN and are inextricably intertwined with the Subscriber Agreement.”
Diesa, a New Jersey cable customer already paying more than $100 per month for service that included ESPN, says he had to upgrade his Disney streaming bundle so his child could watch WWE events. Toback, a New York YouTube TV customer, says she paid $29.99 on the day of a WWE event to access ESPN’s streaming service and canceled afterward.
The lawsuit points to ESPN press releases saying the new app would be available to customers who subscribed directly or through a traditional pay-TV package. It also cites WWE President Nick Khan saying WWE events would come with “no upcharge” for subscribers. The plaintiffs argue those statements created the impression that anyone already paying for ESPN would automatically receive access, even though customers with providers such as YouTube TV, Cox and Xfinity did not have that access when WrestlePalooza aired.
Some providers, including Verizon Fios, DirecTV, Spectrum and Hulu + Live TV, already allowed customers to access the ESPN app without paying another fee. Cox has since added access, while YouTube TV is still working on its integration.
The proposed class includes U.S. customers who paid for the ESPN app between August 6 and September 20, 2025, while already paying for ESPN through cable or a live television streaming service. Customers whose providers already included app access by September 20 are excluded.
ESPN was intentionally left out of the original lawsuit because Disney’s subscriber agreement requires arbitration and blocks class actions. ESPN and WWE are now trying to use those same terms to move the entire dispute out of federal court.
The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial, financial damages, legal fees and an order stopping WWE from continuing any deceptive marketing tied to ESPN access. The August 20 hearing will now decide whether the case can move forward that way or whether ESPN succeeds in forcing the dispute behind closed doors through arbitration.
Do you think the lawsuit should remain in federal court, or should the ESPN subscriber agreement force the case into arbitration? Leave your feedback in the comments.
