FanDuel wins big victory for daily fantasy sports’ legality
Are daily fantasy sites truly distinguishable from casino gambling? According to one U.S. district court, absolutely
October 11, 2013 at 07:46 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
At this point, even if most people don't play fantasy sports, they at least know what it is: You pick a team for the entire season based on real-life players, you make trades within your league, and you get made fun of by your peers if you finish in last place. It's that simple.
However, daily fantasy sports are slightly different. You only select a team for a given day, and often, you pay an entry fee to compete against others for a daily grand prize. For many websites such as FanDuel.com, daily fantasy games are the lifeblood of their company.
But recently, a U.S. district court answered a very important question: How is this distinguishable from gambling, and are daily fantasy sites liable to the same laws as casinos such as the Illinois Loss Recovery Act?
Turns out, they are not. On Oct. 9, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois ruled in favor of the FanDuel following a lawsuit claiming the company's daily fantasy games were illegal games of chance.
The court ruled in FanDuel's favor on mainly two accounts. First, the court ruled that plaintiff Christopher Langone “failed to make even a bare assertion that he could recover more than $75,000,” the minimum to bring legislation under the Illinois Loss Recovery Act. Second, the court claimed that FanDuel was not a “winner” based on the Act, but rather the operator of an online gambling site, similar to a 2007 ruling in favor of CBS concerning CBS Sports's full-season fantasy games.
According to Forbes contributor Marc Edelman, the court skirted around the key question of whether daily fantasy sports contests are illegal games of chance. This is important to legal counsel because it opens up the possibility for lawsuits on different grounds, especially from a plaintiff who reaches the $75,000 threshold.
Many smaller sites such as FanDuel, StarStreet, Draft Kings and others run daily fantasy games, but larger fantasy sports giants such as ESPN and NFL.com are starting to get into the daily fantasy game as well. By not answering the key question at hand, the district court opened these companies up to potential litigation down the road. Another suit, filed by Langone, against the daily fantasy site DraftDay is ongoing in Illinois courts, and Edelman speculates that suit may have a better chance of success.
Through his lawyer, Langone said he plans to pursue the FanDuel case. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet commented on whether it will pick up the case.
At this point, even if most people don't play fantasy sports, they at least know what it is: You pick a team for the entire season based on real-life players, you make trades within your league, and you get made fun of by your peers if you finish in last place. It's that simple.
However, daily fantasy sports are slightly different. You only select a team for a given day, and often, you pay an entry fee to compete against others for a daily grand prize. For many websites such as FanDuel.com, daily fantasy games are the lifeblood of their company.
But recently, a U.S. district court answered a very important question: How is this distinguishable from gambling, and are daily fantasy sites liable to the same laws as casinos such as the Illinois Loss Recovery Act?
Turns out, they are not. On Oct. 9, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois ruled in favor of the FanDuel following a lawsuit claiming the company's daily fantasy games were illegal games of chance.
The court ruled in FanDuel's favor on mainly two accounts. First, the court ruled that plaintiff Christopher Langone “failed to make even a bare assertion that he could recover more than $75,000,” the minimum to bring legislation under the Illinois Loss Recovery Act. Second, the court claimed that FanDuel was not a “winner” based on the Act, but rather the operator of an online gambling site, similar to a 2007 ruling in favor of CBS concerning CBS Sports's full-season fantasy games.
According to Forbes contributor Marc
Many smaller sites such as FanDuel, StarStreet, Draft Kings and others run daily fantasy games, but larger fantasy sports giants such as ESPN and NFL.com are starting to get into the daily fantasy game as well. By not answering the key question at hand, the district court opened these companies up to potential litigation down the road. Another suit, filed by Langone, against the daily fantasy site DraftDay is ongoing in Illinois courts, and
Through his lawyer, Langone said he plans to pursue the FanDuel case. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet commented on whether it will pick up the case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Recent Controversial Decision and Insurance Law May Mitigate Exposure for Companies Subject to False Claims Act Lawsuits
7 minute read
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
