Sling TV’s Bold 54% Savings Claim: Disney Sued Over Sports Bundle “Monopoly”

Sling TV is SUING Disney, claiming its ESPN-Fox bundle is an illegal monopoly.

In a dramatic legal assault on the traditional pay-TV model, Dish Network’s Sling TV has filed a major antitrust lawsuit against The Walt Disney Company. The core allegation? That Disney’s ESPN-Fox One and Fubo Sports bundles represent anti-competitive practices designed to crush flexible, consumer-friendly offerings like Sling’s own short-term passes.

The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court, argues Disney is illegally restraining trade by forcing distributors into rigid, expensive channel packages while simultaneously launching its own “skinny” sports bundles at lower prices. This, Sling claims, is a direct attack on its pioneering pay-as-you-want model, where subscribers can sign up for as little as one day.

“Forced bundling is at the heart of this,” a Sling TV representative stated, framing the case as a battle for consumer choice against “monopolistic control.”

The Heart of the Dispute: Bundles vs. Flexibility

Sling TV’s core grievance is pricing disparity. To access comparable sports content offered in Disney’s $39.99 ESPN-Fox One bundle, a Sling subscriber would need the $65.99 Sling Orange + Blue package—a 54% price hike. Sling argues this is because Disney forces it to carry and pay for low-viewership channels it doesn’t want, a practice not imposed on Disney’s own bundles.

“The old guard’s pricing playbook is under fire,” said an industry analyst. “Sling is betting that courts will now view bundling through a modern, streaming-era lens, not the cable-TV precedent that has historically protected it.”

This case resurrects scrutiny of bundling practices recently highlighted in the failed Venu sports streaming joint venture. Last year, a court blocked Venu, noting bundling was “uniformly and systematically imposed” on all distributors except the venture itself. Disney later acquired Fubo, amending its agreements and dropping bundling requirements for Fubo that it still imposes on Sling.

A Decade-Old Legal Defense Faces a New Reality

Disney will likely rely on longstanding legal precedent. In a key 2012 ruling, a federal appeals court upheld that bundling, by itself, does not violate antitrust law, stating “businesses may choose the manner in which they do business absent an injury to competition.”

However, the streaming landscape has radically changed. Disney itself now markets direct-to-consumer bundles, undermining its traditional wholesale arguments. Sling’s lawsuit characterizes the ESPN-Fox One and Fubo Sports bundles as illegal “Venu doppelgangers,” accusing Disney of trying to corner the skinny bundle market it allegedly dominates.

The complaint also details escalating tensions, alleging Disney is withdrawing content, having already discontinued ESPN3 for Sling subscribers and threatening changes to ACC and SEC Network access.

What Sling TV Wants

Dish is seeking unspecified damages and a monumental court order to “unwind” Disney’s acquisition of Fubo and the ESPN-Fox One bundle. Beyond antitrust claims, it includes a breach of contract allegation, arguing Disney refused it the same favorable terms given to others.

A Disney spokesperson countered: “Dish’s counterclaims have no merit and are nothing more than a tactic to distract from their own misconduct.”

The Bigger Picture

This lawsuit is a flashpoint in a wider war. From Newsmax’s lawsuit against Fox to updated 2023 merger guidelines from regulators, bundling is under unprecedented scrutiny. Sling TV’s aggressive move signals a pivotal shift, as distributors leverage antitrust law to dismantle the very bundling models that have funded the television industry for decades. The outcome could redefine how—and for how much—Americans watch sports online.