ESPN and BAMTech LLC have officially been added as defendants in the consumer lawsuit involving WWE’s transition of Premium Live Event streaming from Peacock to ESPN Unlimited. The court issued its ruling on September 18, granting the companies’ requests to intervene in the case through permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The lawsuit was brought by Michael Diesa and Rebecca Tobak, whose name is also spelled Rebecca Toback in the court’s written ruling. The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging that WWE’s public messaging surrounding the streaming change misled consumers regarding the cost of watching WWE programming after the ESPN transition.
The dispute centers on WWE’s decision to move its streaming distribution away from Peacock and to ESPN’s service. The complaint alleges that consumers who were already ESPN subscribers, including Diesa and Tobak, believed WWE and ESPN’s public statements created confusion or gave misleading impressions concerning the price required to access the programming following the change.
Court Grants Permissive Intervention
WWE was initially the sole defendant named in the action. However, the amended complaint also included allegations involving ESPN, including claims that ESPN violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, commonly referred to as CUTPA, and conspired with WWE in connection with the alleged conduct.
For more background on this topic, read Janel Grant Says She Feels ‘Forgiveness’ Toward Vince McMahon Amid Ongoing Arbitration.
ESPN and BAMTech subsequently sought to join the litigation. BAMTech is an ESPN subsidiary that handles streaming technology. Both companies argued that, because the complaint directly alleged wrongdoing involving them, they should be allowed to participate and defend themselves in the lawsuit.
The companies also want the dispute addressed through arbitration rather than proceeding in federal court. Their position is based on the plaintiffs’ ESPN Unlimited subscriptions and the terms of service associated with those accounts. ESPN and BAMTech maintain that the plaintiffs accepted those terms, which they contend require arbitration of the claims.
In its ruling, the court drew a distinction between intervention as a matter of right and permissive intervention. The judge concluded that ESPN did not meet the required standard to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a), because it had not shown with sufficient rigor that WWE would be unable to adequately protect ESPN’s interests in the case.
“The Court concludes that ESPN is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right,” the ruling stated. “But its arguments for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) are compelling.”
As a result, the motions were granted through Rule 24(b). That outcome formally brings ESPN and BAMTech into the lawsuit as defendants, even though WWE had been the only company directly sued when the case began.
Claims Focus on ESPN Unlimited Transition
The lawsuit concerns WWE’s Premium Live Events being made available through ESPN Unlimited, beginning with Wrestlepalooza 2025. The plaintiffs allege that WWE misled customers about what they would have to pay to watch those events once the Peacock arrangement ended and the ESPN Unlimited era began.
The court’s summary of the amended complaint notes that the plaintiffs believe WWE’s public statements violated CUTPA. The same filing also alleges that ESPN participated in the purported violation and conspired with WWE. Those allegations are claims made by the plaintiffs and have not been established as findings of wrongdoing by the court.
CUTPA is the Connecticut statute at the center of the case. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeks to pursue claims not only for themselves, but also for other consumers they contend were similarly affected by the WWE and ESPN streaming transition.
While WWE was the original defendant, the intervention requests made clear that ESPN and BAMTech sought the opportunity to address the specific accusations aimed at them. The companies’ successful motions mean the allegations involving ESPN will now be handled with ESPN and BAMTech participating directly in the federal case, unless the arbitration argument changes the forum for the dispute.
Arbitration Remains a Key Issue
The question of arbitration is likely to remain central as the case moves forward. ESPN and BAMTech have argued that Diesa and Tobak were ESPN Unlimited subscribers and, by subscribing, agreed to the service’s terms. The companies contend those terms require the claims to be heard in arbitration instead of federal court.
WWE has made the same general argument in its own response to the lawsuit. The companies’ shared position is that the plaintiffs’ agreement to the ESPN Unlimited terms of service should control the venue in which the dispute is resolved.
The September 18 ruling addressed whether ESPN and BAMTech could enter the existing litigation. It did not resolve the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations, nor did it determine whether the case will remain in federal court or be sent to arbitration. The court’s decision instead gives ESPN and BAMTech a formal role in litigating those questions and responding to the complaint.
That distinction is significant. Permissive intervention does not amount to a decision that the plaintiffs’ claims are valid, and it also does not establish that WWE, ESPN, or BAMTech engaged in deceptive conduct. It means the court found a sufficient basis to allow the two ESPN-related entities to take part in a lawsuit that already included allegations concerning their actions.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
Diesa and Tobak have requested a jury trial. Their requested relief is broad and includes actual, compensatory, and consequential damages, with nominal damages as an alternative if necessary. The filing also seeks statutory damages where available under the law, along with punitive damages where permitted.
In addition, the plaintiffs are seeking attorneys’ fees, expenses, and the costs of the action. Their requested relief cites provisions of Connecticut law that permit such awards in applicable CUTPA cases.
The complaint also asks for potential injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs seek an order that would prevent WWE from continuing conduct alleged to violate CUTPA, from conspiring with ESPN in an alleged CUTPA violation, or from aiding and abetting ESPN in alleged violations. They further request any additional legal or equitable relief the court considers appropriate.
Those requested remedies remain allegations and demands from the plaintiffs, rather than relief that has been granted. No damages award, injunction, or finding of liability has been announced in connection with the September 18 intervention ruling.
Why ESPN and BAMTech’s Addition Matters
The addition of ESPN and BAMTech changes the structure of the case. What began as a lawsuit against WWE now includes the media company connected to the new streaming arrangement and the technology subsidiary tied to ESPN’s streaming operation.
For wrestling fans, the litigation is tied to a major change in how WWE Premium Live Events are accessed. WWE’s move from Peacock to ESPN Unlimited affected the company’s streaming landscape and prompted questions from consumers about subscriptions, access, and pricing. The plaintiffs’ complaint places those issues at the heart of its claims.
From the defendants’ perspective, the case will also involve the enforceability of consumer terms of service and whether arbitration provisions apply. If the arbitration arguments are accepted, the plaintiffs’ effort to litigate in federal court and pursue a jury trial could be affected. If the case remains in court, WWE, ESPN, and BAMTech will have the opportunity to contest the allegations through the federal process.
For now, the immediate legal development is clear: ESPN and BAMTech are no longer outside parties seeking entry into the case. The court has granted their motions for permissive intervention, making them defendants alongside WWE as the lawsuit proceeds.
Darryl Polo
Darryl Polo is a passionate wrestling fan covering WWE, AEW, TNA and beyond. He loves great rivalries, breakout stars and the moments that keep fans talking long after the bell. How we work.