ESPN & BAMTech Officially Added As Defendants In Lawsuit Against WWE

ESPN and BAMTech officially join the suit as defendants.

A ruling was issued on September 18th that ESPN and BAMTech LLC had their motion to be added to the lawsuit against WWE approved, and they have officially been added as defendants. BAMTech is a subsidiary of ESPN that handles its streaming technology.

The lawsuit was filed by Michael Diesa and Rebecca Tobak. Below is an excerpt from the latest ruling:

“Last August, World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC (“WWE”) announced that it would be changing television streaming services from Peacock to ESPN. (Am. Compl., Doc. No. 18, ¶ 1.) Some wrestling fans who had previously subscribed to ESPN’s streaming service, including the plaintiffs Michael Diesa and Rebecca Toback, felt misled by WWE’s and ESPN’s public statements about what the programming would cost after the transition. (See id. ¶ 8.) On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Mr. Diesa and Ms. Toback (“Plaintiffs”) sued WWE, alleging among other things that the company’s public statements constituted violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, or “CUTPA.” (Id. ¶¶ 71-76.) They did not sue ESPN.

Two members of the ESPN family of companies have now moved to intervene in the case. (Mot. to Intervene by ESPN, LLC, Doc. No. 34 (“ESPN Motion”); Mot. to Intervene and Incorporated Mem. of Law by BAMTech, LLC, Doc. No. 49 (“BAM Motion”).) The two companies note that, although the Plaintiffs sued only WWE, they expressly allege that ESPN also violated CUTPA and that it conspired with WWE to do so. (E.g., Mem. of L. in Supp. of Mot. to 2 Intervene by ESPN, LLC, Doc. No. 34-1, at 1 (“ESPN Mem.”); see also Am. Compl., Doc. No. 18, ¶¶ 78-84.) Wishing to defend themselves from these allegations, and wishing to see those claims addressed in arbitration rather than federal court, the companies have claimed a right to intervene in this case under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ESPN Motion at 1; BAM Motion at 1.) In the alternative, they ask the Court to grant them permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). (ESPN Motion at 1; BAM Motion at 1.)

Having carefully considered the matter, the Court concludes that ESPN is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right. (See discussion infra Section II.B.) Intervention under Rule 24(a) requires, among other things, a showing that the proposed intervenor’s interest in the litigation will not be sufficiently protected by the existing defendant, and ESPN has not made that showing with the “rigor[]” required by the Second Circuit’s Rule 24(a) case law. (See infra Section II.B.) But its arguments for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) are compelling. (See discussion infra Section II.C.) The motions will therefore be granted. (See infra Section III.)”

The lawsuit alleges that WWE mislead costumers about how to watch its Premium Live Events after they were moved to ESPN Unlimited, starting with Wrestlepalooza 2025.

ESPN and BAMTech are claiming that the lawsuit should be moved to arbitration. They noted that the plaintiffs were subscribed to ESPN Unlimited, which means they agreed to the terms of service. WWE made those same arguments.

Below is what the plaintiffs are seeking:

“An award of actual, compensatory, and/or consequential damages, alternatively, an award of nominal damages (if and as necessary), an award of statutory damages (if and as permitted by law), an award of punitive damages (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(a) and/or as otherwise permitted by law, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this action (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(d) and/or as otherwise permitted by law, an award of the costs of this action (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110g(d) and/or as otherwise permitted by law), any injunctive relief necessary to preclude WWE from (a) continuing to violate CUTPA, (b) conspiring with ESPN to violate CUTPA, and/or (c) aiding and/or abetting ESPN in its violation(s) of CUTPA; and/or any other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.”

The plaintiffs have been seeking a jury trial since the official filing.