The WWE is facing a lawsuit for allegedly misleading fans about their new deal with ESPN for media rights to premium live events in the United States. This comes as no surprise, given the history of streaming services making empty promises about the features and benefits they offer. When streaming services emerged in the late 2000s and early 2010s, they convinced many of us to 'cut the cord' with cable, promising convenient access to every movie and TV show ever made at a low monthly cost. However, as streaming continues to evolve, it's becoming more expensive and cumbersome, mirroring the very cable service it was meant to replace.
Sports and 'sports entertainment' have become the priciest pastimes to follow, with WWE shows now requiring a subscription to cable, Netflix, Peacock, Tubi, and ESPN. This is despite the marketing communications from both WWE and ESPN suggesting that all existing ESPN subscribers would have access to the WWE premium live events (PLEs).
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut, highlights a specific issue: fans who already had ESPN channels through cable or other providers were still required to pay an additional monthly fee to watch WWE events. The plaintiffs argue that this contradicts the marketing communications from both WWE and ESPN. For example, fans had to pay $29.99 for ESPN's standalone app to watch Wrestlepalooza on September 20, even though they already paid for access to the ESPN cable network. This is despite Disney-owned ESPN having deals with some cable carriers to offer subscriptions to the new app to their existing ESPN subscribers.
The suit claims that WWE and ESPN's marketing materials gave no indication of this additional cost, and quotes WWE president Nick Khan from an August podcast, where he stated that there would be no upcharge for WWE's premium live events. The plaintiffs, Michael Diesa of New Jersey and Rebecca Toback of New York, are seeking others to join the action and are hoping for a payout, although the amount is unlikely to be substantial.
This lawsuit is a stark reminder of the 'enshittification' of streaming services, a term coined by writer Cory Doctorow to describe the process by which platforms start out good to their users, then abuse them to benefit business customers, and finally, abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Doctorow's book, 'The Internet Con', and his latest book, 'Enshittification', offer insights into how to address these issues.
