A federal judge in New York has ruled against Disney’s efforts to block Sling TV’s short-term streaming passes, allowing the service to continue offering one-day, weekend, and weekly access to various live TV channels. This decision, made on November 19, 2025, represents a significant moment for the streaming industry, particularly as it relates to how content is accessed and monetized.
Disney’s lawsuit, filed in August 2025, claimed that Sling TV’s ‘Day Pass’ offerings violated licensing agreements by allowing consumers to pay as little as $5 for 24 hours of access to premium content without committing to a full monthly subscription. Disney argued that these flexible subscription models undermine the value of its programming and breach contractual terms that establish minimum subscription periods.
Legal Findings and Industry Impact
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that Disney did not adequately demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary to warrant an injunction against Sling TV. In her ruling, she stated that financial compensation could be sufficient if Disney wins in the upcoming trial. This legal outcome highlights ongoing tensions in the media landscape, where traditional content providers are increasingly challenged by flexible streaming options that disrupt established distribution agreements.
Following the ruling, Sling TV responded by reducing the price of its Day Pass to $1, aiming to attract sports fans looking for short-term access to events broadcast on ESPN. This promotional strategy is part of Sling TV’s broader effort to position itself as a budget-friendly alternative in a market characterized by rising subscription fatigue.
Sling TV’s short-term access model, launched in August 2025, targets viewers interested in specific events, such as NFL games or breaking news, without the burden of ongoing fees. The Orange package, which includes ESPN, has become particularly contentious in Disney’s eyes, as the company perceives it as a threat to its sports broadcasting rights.
Broader Implications for Disney and the Streaming Market
Disney’s aggressive legal strategy reflects a larger effort to safeguard its revenue streams amid declining viewership of traditional linear television. The company, which owns a diverse portfolio that includes ABC, Freeform, and FX, has been negotiating stricter carriage agreements to counteract the fragmentation caused by streaming services. In its complaint, Disney asserted that Sling TV’s passes violate agreements that prohibit temporary access to its programming.
This lawsuit follows previous disputes, such as the 2024 blackout on DirecTV over carriage fees, which affected millions of subscribers and underscored the fragility of media distribution deals in the digital era. According to reports from Stream TV Insider, that incident was resolved after extensive negotiations but highlighted ongoing challenges faced by media companies.
For Dish Network, Sling TV’s parent company, the ruling provides a significant opportunity to expand its user base. With over 2 million subscribers, Sling TV has established itself as a cost-effective alternative to traditional cable, emphasizing no-contract options. The immediate introduction of the $1 Day Pass is seen as a strategic move to attract viewers for upcoming events, including college football playoffs.
Experts predict that if Sling prevails in the ongoing litigation, it may set a precedent for other platforms exploring similar short-term access models. According to media analyst Michael Nathanson, “This is about the future of content monetization. Short-term access models challenge the bundled subscription paradigm that has long sustained networks like ESPN.”
The financial implications of this dispute are substantial. Disney’s ESPN network generates billions of dollars in affiliate fees from cable providers. Allowing for short-term access could weaken these revenues, potentially leading Disney to seek higher fees or more stringent terms in future agreements. Estimates from Cord Cutters News indicate that the Day Pass has already driven Sling’s sign-ups by appealing to viewers who prefer event-driven access.
Consumer advocates have praised the court’s decision, arguing that it promotes competition and affordability in the streaming market. This ruling aligns with heightened regulatory scrutiny of media conglomerates, as the Federal Trade Commission closely monitors antitrust issues related to streaming mergers.
As the case advances towards trial, both parties are preparing their arguments. Disney may present evidence of lost revenue, while Sling could contend that its offerings align with contract language permitting flexible access. Legal experts anticipate a protracted battle, with potential appeals that could extend the litigation for months or even years.
In the interim, Sling’s promotional pricing is likely to stimulate user growth. Recent web searches show a surge in interest for the Day Pass, particularly following the ruling, as consumers explore alternatives to costly monthly subscriptions. This dispute reflects shifting viewer preferences towards on-demand, pay-per-use models, compelling traditional broadcasters to adapt.
Stakeholder perspectives vary, with Sling executives expressing optimism about the ruling, stating it “validates our commitment to consumer choice.” In contrast, Disney has pledged to continue its legal fight, emphasizing the importance of protecting its intellectual property rights. As this case unfolds, its outcome may redefine licensing agreements across the industry, impacting everything from sports broadcasting to general entertainment.
