WWE is facing fresh legal heat after a new class-action complaint alleges the company misled fans about access to its premium live events when the shows moved to ESPN’s new streaming product. The shift, the plaintiffs say, left some longtime ESPN subscribers paying again to watch the very events they thought were included.
According to reporting from POST Wrestling’s Brandon Thurston, the lawsuit alleges that WWE and ESPN created confusion during the rollout of ESPN’s new streaming app by suggesting that WWE premium live events would be available to all ESPN subscribers. In reality, many fans who already paid for ESPN through cable or live TV streaming bundles discovered they needed to purchase ESPN’s standalone direct-to-consumer tier to watch WWE’s biggest shows.
The lawsuit covers a short but critical window last fall, shortly after ESPN secured exclusive U.S. streaming rights to WWE premium live events. The complaint describes the rollout as a “bait and switch,” arguing that longtime fans reasonably believed their existing ESPN access would carry over once WWE’s events left Peacock and moved to ESPN. Instead, the lawsuit claims, consumers were prompted to sign up for ESPN Unlimited under the impression that it was required, and only later realized that not all ESPN subscriptions were treated equally.
Plaintiffs say an August press push and public statements from WWE executives created the impression that “you subscribe to that product, you get WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, all of our other premium live events, with no upcharge” — a line WWE President Nick Khan used while explaining the transition and how previous platform moves worked.
Additionally, Sports Illustrated’s Jon Alba pressed ESPN on the scope of its involvement during pre-launch media calls; ESPN executives emphasized that WWE retains creative control over talent and booking and that ESPN’s role is distribution, not editorial oversight. That distinction matters if the litigation turns on who controlled the rollout messaging.
The WWE-ESPN agreement, reportedly worth roughly $325 million a year, was positioned as a cornerstone piece of ESPN’s broader push into streaming-first sports distribution. WWE’s rollout on the app arrived earlier than originally anticipated after September’s Wreslepalooza kicked off the deal. The accelerated timeline created confusion about authentication, access, and which subscriptions actually included WWE content. That uncertainty only grew as some pay-TV and streaming providers had not yet finalized how ESPN Unlimited would be bundled or offered to customers.
The timing also coincided with a high-profile carriage dispute between Disney and YouTube TV late last year, which temporarily removed ESPN and other Disney-owned networks from the service. YouTube TV was one of the platforms that carried ESPN linear channels, but subscribers needed a separate ESPN Unlimited subscription to watch WWE PLEs.
During their dispute, YouTube TV later issued credits to affected subscribers and eventually reached a new agreement with Disney that restored ESPN, and ESPN Unlimited access is on the way. The blackout on the largest OTT streaming TV service and additional paywall further highlighted how fragmented WWE’s new streaming ecosystem had become.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, was brought by Michael Diesa of New Jersey and Rebecca Toback of New York. The two consumers said they were existing ESPN subscribers, yet still paid for ESPN’s DTC “Unlimited” tier ahead of Wrestlepalooza. Diesa, an Xfinity cable customer, says he upgraded his streaming plan so his son could watch the show. Toback, a YouTube TV subscriber, says she bought the ESPN DTC service on the day of Wrestlepalooza and later canceled after watching the event.
The complaint seeks to represent consumers like Diesa and Toback who bought ESPN’s DTC service between August and September 2025 despite already having ESPN through another provider. Plaintiffs argue that WWE and ESPN’s public messaging failed to clearly explain the difference between traditional ESPN access and the new direct-to-consumer tier, leading fans to spend money under false assumptions. If certified, the class could encompass up to 95,00 to 125,000 fans, and the potential aggregate refunds could stretch into the millions, even if individual reimbursements would be modest.
While WWE and Disney have not publicly responded to the complaint, the case underscores a growing challenge facing major sports and entertainment brands. As rights migrate from cable bundles to streaming platforms, clarity matters. When it doesn’t exist, even the most loyal fans may end up feeling left out of the ring.
Credit: POST Wrestling
