ESPN files motion to intervene in class action lawsuit over WWE PLEs

ESPN has responded to a class action lawsuit filed against WWE regarding subscriber access to Premium Live Events (PLEs) which became exclusive to ESPN’s direct-to-consumer service in September 2025.

The filing, made in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Friday, asserts that ESPN, who is not listed as a defendant in the original lawsuit, has a right to intervene in the case in order to defend its interests. ESPN argues that WWE alone will not necessarily act in the company’s best interests, and the allegations brought by the two individuals filing on behalf of ESPN direct-to-consumer subscribers are potentially damaging, albeit “meritless” in ESPN’s estimation.

ESPN has moved to intervene in the class action lawsuit against WWE over access to PLEs. ESPN wants to compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs did not name ESPN as a defendant, apparently to get around the arbitration clause in the subscriber agreement. https://t.co/qm0UtJ4huN pic.twitter.com/Jer3nKcglp

— Brandon Thurston (@BrandonThurston) March 28, 2026

ESPN says that subscribers, by agreeing to the Subscriber Agreement, “agree to individually arbitrate disputes about their subscriptions and the service, and they agree not to assert them in putative class actions in court.” The network claims that the two individuals bringing forth the lawsuit intentionally omitted ESPN as a defendant as a means of circumventing that clause in the Subscriber Agreement, even though their allegations directly implicate ESPN.

The original lawsuit alleges that WWE and ESPN violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by charging subscribers $29.99 per month after promising the ESPN direct-to-consumer service would be available at no additional cost to individuals that receive ESPN as part of a cable or satellite bundle (or virtual equivalent). That was quickly proven not to be the case when the new ESPN app launched in August 2025, and the network still needed to hammer out new distribution agreements with major carriers like Comcast and YouTube TV to include authentication into the direct-to-consumer platform.

ESPN claims that the lawsuit is without merit because both individuals voluntarily purchased the direct-to-consumer service anyway. The network also points out inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ logic, including statements like “‘WWE fans’ knew right away, and were immediately ‘furious’ about ‘the $29.99 per month’ price,” which shows they subscribed to the service as advertised.

Considering ESPN is central to this lawsuit, yet not listed as a defendant, the network’s case to intervene would appear pretty strong. But the fact that ESPN’s lack of transparency regarding its direct-to-consumer service led to a lawsuit in the first place tells you that the network could’ve done a much better job setting expectations about the timeline in which cable and satellite customers would gain access to the platform. In September, when the first WWE PLE aired exclusively on the new ESPN app, countless individuals that “should’ve” had access to the event through their pay TV bundles had to pay an extra $29.99 to watch.

So even if ESPN is justified in its legal arguments, it still lost that battle in the court of public opinion.