For most people, September 8th came and went in silence. There are no countdown clocks or breaking alerts. However, it was the final day for hundreds of thousands of DirecTV Stream and YouTube TV subscribers nationwide to submit a claim in a $50 million settlement against The Walt Disney Company; if they missed it, that window is now closed.
Formally known as Biddle v. Disney, the case began as a federal class action lawsuit in 2022. The main point of contention was straightforward: live TV streaming services like YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream had to include ESPN in their base packages because Disney, which also owns a large portfolio of channels and streaming properties, controls ESPN. The plaintiffs contended that this arrangement gave Disney significant pricing power, resulting in fewer affordable options and higher monthly bills for consumers than would have been the case in a more competitive market. Disney agreed to a partial $50 million settlement with YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream subscribers, but denied any wrongdoing. Subscribers to FuboTV were excluded.
All of this has a certain irony. The lawsuit implies that the very agreements Disney made to safeguard ESPN’s distribution may have cost regular streaming subscribers actual money, despite the fact that ESPN has spent years attempting to figure out how to survive the cord-cutting era. The precise amount that each eligible claimant will receive is still somewhat unknown; the payout is based on the state in which a person resides and is proportionate to the duration of their subscription.
Two groups of eligible members are created by the settlement. After administrative expenses are subtracted, subscribers in what the settlement refers to as “repealer jurisdictions”—a list of about 38 states and territories, including California, New York, Florida, and Texas—will collectively receive 90% of the remaining funds.
The remaining 10% was divided among subscribers in “non-repealer jurisdictions,” a smaller group of states that includes Pennsylvania and Illinois. The distinction is based on whether or not each state’s antitrust laws permit more extensive consumer damages. When most people are just trying to watch live sports on a Tuesday nite, they don’t consider this kind of detail.
A notice containing a Unique ID required to file should have been sent to qualifying subscribers via mail or email, possibly buried in a spam folder. By September 8th, the claim may be postmarked or submitted online. Although it’s possible that a sizable portion of qualified subscribers either never saw the notice or thought it was junk mail, the procedure wasn’t particularly difficult. Such class action settlements typically result in that. A lot of people are eligible. Actually, there are fewer files.
The settlement is not final yet. Objections submitted prior to the January 14, 2027, court approval hearing could impede or complicate distribution. If the court gives final approval, payments won’t be made until after that hearing. As a result, those who did submit a claim are now subject to a minimum four-month waiting period.
It’s difficult to avoid seeing this settlement as a component of a larger, continuous conflict between major media corporations and the platforms designed to distribute their content. Disney is not the only company in the industry to enter into agreements that combine popular channels with less desirable ones; this has been the norm for many years. However, those same bundling practices followed the content online as streaming took the place of traditional cable packages, and customers started to notice the impact on their bills. In some ways, this lawsuit was a direct result of that frustration finding a way to be expressed legally.
It’s a different matter entirely whether $50 million accurately represents what subscribers might have overpaid over a seven-year period. For individual claimants, class action math seldom yields sums that can change their lives. However, the case itself may end up being more significant than the checks because of the scrutiny it brought to the way media companies set up their distribution agreements.
