A bronze statue of Lady Justice holding scales is displayed indoors.
HARTFORD, Conn. – ESPN is allowed to refute claims it was involved in an “outlandish money grab” when World Wrestling Entertainment switched to its streaming service.
Connecticut federal magistrate judge Thomas Farrish granted the company’s motion to intervene in a proposed class action lawsuit against the WWE on Sept. 18. Plaintiffs complain in the suit that WWE’s decision to leave Peacock caused them to pay more for premium live events, though WWE had said otherwise.
ESPN is not a defendant in the case, though the complaint does say ESPN leveraged the timing of a Wrestlepalooza event to create a sense of urgency for potential subscribers. Through Rule 24 intervention in the lawsuit, ESPN hopes to send the claims to arbitration rather than have them heard in open court.
“It is true, as the plaintiffs stated, that they are the masters of their complaint,” Farrish wrote. “It is also true that they can choose which party to sue, and when they have been the victims of a multi-party conspiracy, they do not have to sue all the conspirators.
“But ESPN is just as right when it says that ‘Rule 24 exists because plaintiffs sometimes exclude parties with a right and reason to participate.’”
The suit was filed Jan. 8, after the transition from Peacock, which charges $11 a month, to ESPN, which charges about $30. Those with ESPN logins from cable or elsewhere still had to pay extra to view premium live events, the suit says.
Multiple public statements are cited as support for the claim WWE violated Connecticut consumer protection law. A press release in August 2025 promised more choices and access on the ESPN app for customers “whether they subscribe directly or through a traditional pay TV package.”
“As consumers learned when they tried to sign up for the new DTC service – many on the eve of the first WWE PLE to stream on the service – WWE’s (and ESPN’s) material representations, which were likely to (and did) mislead consumers, simply were not true,” the suit says.
“They were a ‘bait and switch’: The majority of consumers who already had subscribed to ESPN in another manner and expected to receive access to the new service for free instead were required to pay in full for it.”
Attorneys at Scott+Scott and Lynch Carpenter chose not to name ESPN as a defendant but wrote that it and WWE joined together to “perform an unlawful act.”
