ESPN is now trying to step into a class-action lawsuit tied to WWE programming, adding another twist to a legal fight that started earlier this year. According to a report from Brandon Thurston, ESPN filed a memorandum on Friday asking the court to allow the network to intervene in a lawsuit that was originally filed in January. The lawsuit was brought by two consumers who claimed WWE used deceptive marketing by advertising that ESPN subscribers would get access to premium live events without paying extra. When the lawsuit was first filed, WWE was named as a defendant, but ESPN was not included in the case. The report explained why ESPN may not have been named at the start, pointing to a possible legal strategy by the plaintiffs. Context around ESPNs move suggested the company believes it should have been included in the lawsuit from the beginning. With this new filing, ESPN is asking the court to move the lawsuit into arbitration. That process is tied to Disneys subscriber agreement, which covers ESPNs services and outlines how disputes are supposed to be handled. When WWE and ESPN first announced their deal, ESPN stated that they expected to eventually reach agreements with cable and streaming providers that would allow customers to get ESPN Unlimited at no additional cost. However, that has not fully happened yet. As things stand now, customers whose providers do not include ESPN Unlimited must still pay $30 per month for access. The lawsuit itself is seeking to represent customers across the United States who were ESPN subscribers between August 6 and just before WWEs Wrestlepalooza premium live event on September 20. It also includes people who paid separately for the service during that time. Some subscribers are not included in the lawsuit. Customers who used Hulu + Live TV, Spectrum, Verizon FIOS, DirecTV, or Fubo TV during that period are excluded because those providers already offered access to the service at no extra cost. This legal battle could have major implications for how streaming access to WWE events is marketed and delivered in the future, especially if the case expands to include ESPN directly. Do you think ESPN should be added to this lawsuit, and should companies be held responsible when streaming access doesnt match what customers expected? Share your thoughts and let us know. G Add as a preferred source on Google
