The ongoing legal battle between Dish Network and the Walt Disney Company escalated further in a New York federal court as Dish strongly opposed Disney’s request to temporarily halt discovery proceedings related to Dish’s antitrust counterclaims in the dispute over Sling TV’s short-term subscription passes, according to Law360.
The conflict originated in mid-2025 when Sling TV, Dish’s over-the-top streaming service, introduced innovative short-term access options. These passes allow consumers to subscribe to a bundle of approximately 34 channels—including major networks such as ESPN, ESPN2, Disney Channel, AMC, TNT, and TBS—for limited periods: one day for $4.99, three days for $9.99, or seven days for $14.99. Unlike traditional monthly subscriptions, these passes require no long-term commitment, providing flexible, low-cost access to live programming, particularly appealing for viewers interested in specific events like sports games.
Disney, along with its ESPN division and other affiliated entities, responded by filing a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Dish. The suit contended that including Disney-owned channels in these short-term packages violated the terms of existing carriage and licensing agreements between the companies. Those agreements, according to Disney’s position, contemplated ongoing monthly subscriptions rather than fragmented, temporary access that could undermine traditional revenue models in the pay-television industry.
In late 2025, a federal judge denied Disney’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the Sling passes. The court determined that Disney had not sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its breach claims or established irreparable harm from the continued availability of the passes. This ruling permitted Sling TV to maintain the short-term offerings while the case proceeded.
Dish then shifted to the offensive in early 2026 by filing counterclaims against Disney, ESPN, ABC, FX, and related parties. These counterclaims accused Disney of antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, specifically alleging unlawful tying arrangements and attempts to monopolize aspects of the market for “skinny” sports bundles—targeted channel packages focused on sports content. Dish argued that Disney leverages its dominant position in live sports programming, particularly through ESPN’s must-carry status, to force distributors like Sling to accept less desirable channels at inflated prices as a condition for accessing high-value sports networks. The counterclaims further asserted that Disney’s practices, including favorable deals with select partners such as those involving Fubo and bundled offerings like ESPN-Fox One, disadvantaged competitors and stifled innovation in consumer-friendly streaming formats.
Disney moved to dismiss these antitrust counterclaims in February 2026, characterizing them as meritless distractions from the core breach-of-contract issues. Following that motion, Disney sought a stay of discovery on the antitrust portions of the case, contending that the strength of its dismissal arguments justified pausing the exchange of documents, depositions, and other investigative steps to conserve resources pending the court’s decision on dismissal.
Dish responded forcefully in a letter submitted to the court on March 12, 2026. The satellite provider contended that Disney’s request for a stay relied on an overconfident assessment of its dismissal motion’s prospects. Dish emphasized that the antitrust issues warranted full exploration through discovery, as they involved complex questions about market power, bundling practices, and competitive effects in the evolving video distribution landscape. Pausing discovery, Dish maintained, would unnecessarily delay resolution and prejudice its ability to develop evidence supporting the counterclaims.
The case, unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, highlights broader tensions in the media and streaming industry. Traditional pay-TV providers like Dish face pressure from cord-cutting trends, while programmers like Disney seek to protect bundled channel ecosystems amid the rise of flexible, a la carte-like options. The outcome could influence how licensing agreements accommodate—or restrict—innovative pricing and packaging strategies in the competitive streaming market. As of mid-March 2026, the court had not yet ruled on Disney’s stay request or its motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, leaving the litigation active on multiple fronts with potential implications for consumer choices in live television access.
Please add Cord Cutters News as a source for your Google News feed HERE. Please follow us on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join our Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help.