Disney Agrees to $50 Million Settlement in Streaming Antitrust Lawsuit Over Subscription Fees

The Walt Disney Company has agreed to pay $50 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit that accused the media giant of inflating the cost of live TV streaming services by requiring providers to include ESPN channels in their subscription packages. The agreement covers YouTube TV and DirecTV customers.

The proposed settlement was filed by the plaintiffs on March 5, 2026, and still requires preliminary approval from the court before moving forward.

Typical Disney settles before it goes further into court.

Who Could Be Covered by the Settlement

If the court approves the agreement, the settlement would apply to two groups of streaming subscribers:

• YouTube TV customers who purchased a subscription at any time between April 1, 2019 and the date the settlement receives preliminary approval
• DirecTV streaming subscribers—including those using services branded as DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now, or AT&T TV Now—during the same time period

  Consumers who fall within these categories could become part of the settlement class and may be eligible to receive compensation.

How Payments Would Be Determined

The proposed settlement includes both financial compensation and business practice changes.

According to court documents, the exact amount each person may receive has not yet been finalized.

Payments would depend on factors including:

• How long the individual subscribed to the service
• Where the subscriber lived, since different state laws could affect claims

Class members would be able to submit a claim form either online or by mail if the settlement is approved. Payments could be issued through electronic transfer or by check.

Information on how to submit a claim will be released once an official settlement website becomes available.

Allegations in the Lawsuit

The lawsuit accused Disney of violating federal antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Antitrust Act, through the way it negotiated carriage agreements with live streaming television providers.

According to the complaint, Disney required streaming services such as YouTube TV and DirecTV’s streaming platforms to include ESPN channels in their lowest-priced packages in order to carry Disney networks.

The lawsuit also challenged a “most-favored-nation” clause included in Disney’s agreements. Plaintiffs argued that the clause effectively prevented streaming providers from offering cheaper alternatives because it ensured Disney’s ESPN pricing would not be undercut.

The filing further claimed that Disney used the combined influence of ESPN and Hulu—acquired by Disney in 2019—to create a pricing floor in the streaming TV market, leading to higher costs for consumers.

Disney has not admitted wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement. This is another typical Disney maneuver. Move to settle but refuse to admit wrongdoing. 

Required Changes to Disney’s Business Practices

In addition to the $50 million payment, the agreement would require Disney to adopt certain operational changes for three years.

Under the proposed settlement terms, Disney must:

• Consider proposals from streaming live pay-TV providers to offer subscription packages that do not include every Disney network, including higher-priced channels like ESPN.
• Maintain “information walls” that prevent confidential negotiation details from being shared between teams handling Disney’s linear television networks—such as ESPN—and teams negotiating with streaming live pay-TV providers, including services like Hulu + Live TV.

These measures are intended to prevent sensitive pricing information from being shared internally in ways that could influence negotiations with competing services.

What Happens Next

The settlement must first receive preliminary approval from the court. If granted, the case would move forward to a final approval hearing, where a judge will determine whether the agreement should be fully approved.

If the settlement ultimately receives final approval, eligible subscribers would then be able to file claims for their portion of the settlement fund.

The lawsuit represents one of the most prominent legal challenges in recent years related to pricing practices in the live streaming television market, where services bundle dozens of channels—including premium sports networks—into subscription packages.

Source: Classaction.org