In a professional wrestling tag-team match, much of the action centers on keeping a wrestler taking a beating from making contact with his partner (or one of his partners), which lets them swap roles. In a case seeking class action certification against the biggest pro wrestling organization in the world, the tag has been made to allow the planet’s largest sports network to hop over the top rope and turn it into a royal rumble instead.
On September 18, 2026, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut granted a motion to intervene to ESPN, allowing two of the sports behemoth’s companies to be named as co-defendants with World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC (WWE) in a proposed class action lawsuit filed by a pair of ESPN subscribers. The suit accused WWE of “bait-and-switch” deceptive marketing practices over hidden costs for premium live events (PLEs) in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA).
While the suit also alleged wrongful conduct by ESPN and claimed that WWE conspired with, or aided and abetted, ESPN, it named only WWE as a defendant when it was filed in January 2026 and vigorously fought the sports empire’s inclusion. Why would ESPN voluntarily open itself to potential liability? Beyond its “legal interest” in defending itself, ESPN’s subscriber agreement includes an arbitration clause and waivers against class action suits. This may become a legal piledriver that pins the plaintiff’s complaint for a three-count.
In This Corner, From the Fighting Cities of Stamford and Bristol . . .
With millions of viewers on streaming platforms and stadium sellouts for WrestleMania and SummerSlam events, WWE stands alone at the top of the professional wrestling industry. Blending choreographed gladiatorial combat with telenovela-like plot arcs, twists, and turns, WWE boasts legions of passionately dedicated fans who eagerly embrace kayfabe through every powerslam, flying dropkick, and RKO. This has translated to billions in revenue over the past few decades, with no end in sight.
Starting as the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network in 1979, what was once a humble basic cable sports network grew into its motto of “The Worldwide Leader in Sports.” Now owned by the Walt Disney Company, Hearst Communications, and the National Football League (NFL), ESPN remains supreme through exclusive rights to most major professional sports in the United States and its own streaming networks for college sports.
WWE’s PLEs were previously available for an $11 monthly fee on the Peacock streaming network. In August 2025, WWE and ESPN announced a five-year rights agreement making ESPN platforms, including the new direct-to-consumer service, the exclusive U.S. home of WWE PLEs beginning in 2026. Later that month, they announced that Wrestlepalooza on September 20, 2025, would be the first WWE PLE on ESPN platforms. However, some fans detected a heel turn.
Time for a Legal Steel-Cage Match
On January 8, 2026, two WWE fans—Michael Diesa, who subscribed to ESPN through Xfinity, and Rebecca Toback, whose subscription ran through YouTube TV—filed a complaint seeking class action certification in Connecticut, accusing WWE of CUTPA violations and engaging in a civil conspiracy with ESPN. Diesa and Toback claimed that they were led to believe their existing ESPN subscriptions would provide WWE PLE access without additional charges. This proved untrue, as some ESPN subscribers, including the plaintiffs, had to pay $29.99 a month for the new DTC service. For Toback, that price was set to rise to $35.99 after a promotional offer expired.
The suit cites WWE President Nick Khan, who stated during an August 2025 podcast appearance that ESPN subscribers would get all WWE “Premium Live Events with no upcharge.” Alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, Diesa and Toback’s suit sought to include everyone forced to pay the additional charges to access WWE PLEs, targeting WWE but leaving ESPN off the complaint.
However, ESPN didn’t want to be excluded. ESPN, LLC filed a motion to intervene on March 27, 2026. BAMTech, LLC filed a separate motion on April 3. Claiming a “legally protective interest” in enforcing its subscriber arbitration provision and defending itself against allegations of unlawful behavior, ESPN argued it had the right to intervene under Rules 24(a) and 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish agreed with part of ESPN’s rationale. While he didn’t find that ESPN met the requirements for Rule 24(a), he ruled that ESPN’s argument was sufficient to support the motion to intervene under Rule 24(b). The complaint alleges that ESPN violated CUTPA, and the court held that the plaintiffs cannot prevail on their conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting claims against WWE without establishing that ESPN violated CUTPA. Because CUTPA allows punitive damages, ESPN could face a sizeable award or settlement. This required a means to defend itself.
WWE, ESPN, LLC, and BAMTech have already jointly moved to compel arbitration. The intervention order does not resolve that motion, and the plaintiffs may seek district-judge review of the order by written objection due October 2, 2026.
