A new class action lawsuit filed Thursday night in U.S. District Court in Connecticut accuses WWE and ESPN of deceptive marketing practices. The suit centers on WWE’s recent move of its premium live events to ESPN’s direct-to-consumer streaming service.
The complaint takes issue with how some fans who already get ESPN channels through cable or other providers were still required to pay an additional monthly fee to watch WWE events. The plaintiffs allege this contradicts marketing communications from both WWE and ESPN, which they claim suggested all existing ESPN subscribers would have access to the WWE PLEs.
The plaintiffs are seeking to represent any U.S. customers who paid for ESPN’s DTC service in the run-up to Wrestlepalooza on Sept. 20 while already being an ESPN subscriber through traditional means.
The lawsuit only names WWE as a defendant and not ESPN or its parent Disney. By only suing WWE, the plaintiffs are trying to avoid the arbitration and class action waiver provisions that they note are in Disney’s subscriber agreement.
The suit claims more than $5 million are at issue. If the plaintiffs prevail, an eligible consumer might receive a refund or partial reimbursement.
When PLEs moved to the ESPN app, some pay TV subscribers who get ESPN as part of their service got access to the PLEs on the app, and others did not — at least not yet. It depends on various agreements ESPN’s parent Disney has with each pay TV provider. Some TV systems allowed customers to authenticate into the app and view the PLEs, others did not. Cox, for example, recently told customers they now have access to the ESPN app. YouTube TV and Disney recently renewed their agreement, which is expected to give subscribers that access as well.
So not only non-cable households but also those that do get ESPN but just don’t get automatic access to ESPN’s new app have had to sign up for the ESPN Unlimited service for $29.99 per month to watch WWE PLEs since they moved to the platform in September as part of a new deal that will pay WWE an average of $325 million per year. That’s a strong increase from the roughly $200 million Peacock was paying for the PLEs and other content.
The suit outlines the events surrounding the announcement. An August 6, 2025, press release said that the features of the new app would “be available to all fans who watch on the ESPN App on mobile and connected TV devices, whether they subscribe directly or through a traditional pay TV package.” The lawsuit says this misled consumers. The plaintiffs point to that and similar messaging in ESPN’s press materials that “all fans who subscribe to ESPN” through either the app or traditional pay TV means would have access when watching WWE PLEs on the ESPN app.
The complaint also cites WWE President Nick Khan telling listeners on the Varsity podcast.
In his August podcast comments, Khan was going through the history of WWE’s marquee events moving from pay-per-view to the WWE Network, then to Peacock, and now to ESPN’s platform. When WWE moved away from pay-per-view, he said, subscribers could watch the company’s biggest shows for $9.99, with no upcharge
“When we did the Peacock deal in 2020, same thing, no upcharge for what were pay-per-views,” Khan said to host John Ourand. “Same thing here with what has been referred to as ‘ESPN Flagship.’ You subscribe to that product, you get WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, all of our other premium live events, with no upcharge.”
The plaintiffs allege that comment misled customers who already had access to ESPN channels into believing they wouldn’t need to pay extra to watch the PLEs.
ESPN declined to comment for this story. WWE did not respond to our request.
The plaintiffs allege WWE and ESPN drew customers into a “bait and switch,” by requiring many existing ESPN subscribers to buy ESPN’s new direct-to-consumer product,
The complaint points to examples of reporting and consumer frustration in the days leading up to Wrestlepalooza.
The complaint is brought by plaintiffs Michael Diesa of New Jersey and Rebecca Toback of New York. They say they personally subscribed to the service during the initial launch while already paying for ESPN via other providers. Diesa says he’s an Xfinity cable subscriber paying about $116 per month for cable, which includes ESPN’s traditional channels. He says he upgraded his Disney+ streaming plan on August 22 to a bundle that included ESPN Unlimited so his nine-year-old son could watch WWE PLEs.
Toback is a YouTube TV subscriber who says she pays $82.99 per month. She says she signed up on September 20, the day of Wrestlepalooza, for ESPN’s DTC service at the $29.99 price point and later canceled after watching the show.
Their proposed class would represent customers who paid for the ESPN Unlimited service between August 6 and September 20 while also being subscribers of services that get traditional ESPN channels. The class would exclude customers of DirecTV, Fubo TV, Hulu + Live TV, Spectrum, or Verizon FIOS — services that did allow their customers to authenticate into the app and watch the PLEs by September 20.
Individually, the money consumers stand to gain is relatively small — around $30 or possibly more, depending on the plan a customer might’ve used to sign up. The plaintiffs attempt to use that point to their advantage, arguing that’s exactly why their case should proceed, because it’s not practical for most consumers to sue over a single month or two of subscriber fees.
Despite the relatively small fees, though, the exposure and size of the class could be large. The complaint cites reporting estimating that WWE content drove roughly 95,000 to 125,000 signups during the proposed class period.
With the complaint filed on Thursday, WWE has not yet responded in court.
An early dispute might center around whether WWE can be held responsible for the marketing and rollout decisions of ESPN’s product and whether the plaintiffs can establish that WWE’s statements were deceptive in context. Certifying the class could also be a key issue.
