Disney is taking Sling TV and its parent Dish Network to court, arguing that Sling’s new short-term subscription packages violate their licensing deal.
Earlier this month, Sling introduced a slate of temporary access bundles, including a Day Pass for $4.99, a Weekend Pass for $9.99, and a Week Pass for $14.99 that give users access to 34 channels in the Sling Orange tier. That lineup includes ESPN, ESPN2, Disney Channel, CNN, TNT, TBS, and AMC. Sling pitched the product as a way for sports fans and event-driven viewers to avoid committing to long-term subscriptions.
Disney is not having it. The company filed suit in the Southern District of New York, alleging that the new Sling offers breach its existing distribution agreements. Disney says Sling never received approval for the day and week pass model, which falls outside the contract’s authorized monthly-only subscription terms.
The dispute comes as Disney aggressively expands its own streaming strategy. The company recently launched ESPN Unlimited at $29.99 per month and continues to push discounted bundles with Disney+ and Hulu, both with and without ads. The timing of Sling’s move, essentially offering ESPN on a pay-per-view-style basis, undercuts Disney’s tightly controlled pricing structure for its networks.
For Sling, the Day Pass strategy was meant to address churn and court casual sports fans unwilling to pay the full $46 monthly rate for Orange. Sling has been steadily losing subscribers, dropping to 1.79 million in its latest quarter. By offering low-commitment packages, Sling hoped to carve out a unique position in the live-TV space. Instead, the service now faces a legal battle with one of its most important programming partners.
If Disney prevails, it could shut down Sling’s experiment with a la carte-style, event-driven subscriptions, a move that would ripple across the industry, where operators are searching for new ways to reach increasingly price-sensitive and short-term viewers.
The Streaming Wars is intentionally ad-free
We don’t run display ads. Not because we can’t, but because we don’t believe in them.
They interrupt the reading experience. They cheapen the work. And they burn advertisers’ money on impressions nobody actually wants.
So we chose a different model.
We say the things people in this industry are already thinking but don’t say out loud. We connect the dots beyond the headline and focus on explaining why things matter to the people working in this business.
If you believe industry coverage can exist without clutter and interruption, you can support it here → SUPPORT TSW.
Support is optional. But it directly funds research and continued coverage — and helps prove this model can work.
Support TSW →
