FanDuel announces ban on credit card deposits

Abi Bray

13 February 2026 at 6:31am UTC-5

Shutterstock.com

Email, LinkedIn, and more

FanDuel has introduced a ban on credit cards, preventing its US users from depositing funds via the payment method.

In a statement to USA Today, the operator had said, “Over the last few months, FanDuel has been evaluating the payment methods that we offer to customers and made the decision to remove credit cards as an option for our sportsbook, casino, and racing product in the United States.”

Article continues below ad

The announcement followed FanDuel receiving a letter from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren prior to the Super Bowl, which requested information on the operator’s credit card policy.

The letter noted that around a quarter of American bettors used credit cards to place bets, and a number of those reported hidden fees. Warren said, “Americans may be prepared to lose money on a bet they make – but most are not prepared to lose an extra 50% in credit card junk fees on top of their bet.”

Following the policy change, Warren posted on social media, acknowledging FanDuel’s announcement and advocating that other industry platforms follow suit.

Article continues below ad

This follows sportsbook operator DraftKings banning credit card use on its platform in August last year, though several other platforms, including Bet365 and BetMGM, still allow them.

Currently, only eight of the 32 states that have legalized online betting have bans on credit card use.

However, others are looking to introduce similar bans, including Maine, which introduced a bill last month to ban credit card use for online sports betting.

Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.

View Abi Bray's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Operators

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Why FanDuel’s move lands now

FanDuel’s credit card ban arrives after months of scrutiny over whether borrowed money should bankroll online bets and on the heels of a public push from Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Days before the Super Bowl, Warren sent the company a detailed oversight request about its card policies and potential “junk fees” borne by bettors who finance wagers with revolving credit. Her office posted the correspondence publicly, including a copy of her letter to FanDuel, then amplified the message on social media after the company acted. She later urged other operators to follow, noting her support in a post on X.

The policy change also aligns FanDuel with an emerging, uneven U.S. standard. Several major platforms still accept credit cards, but regulators and lawmakers in a growing list of jurisdictions are either banning the practice or tightening oversight. The split has put operators in a bind: preserve a frictionless deposit method that can lift handle, or preempt tougher rules and reputational risk by cutting off credit lines to bettors.

Enforcement muscle in Massachusetts

Massachusetts shows how quickly tolerance for card-funded wagers is narrowing. The state outlawed credit cards for sports betting at launch in 2023, then levied its largest sports wagering penalty to date when DraftKings failed to fully block prohibited deposits. Regulators documented more than 1,100 impermissible wagers tied to 242 credit card deposits before the issue was fixed. The case culminated in a US$450,000 fine and a mandate to refund affected customers, with a third-party audit to verify there were no additional violations around launch. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission memorialized its decision in a public order.

Local media captured the penalty’s record size and the regulator’s message. NBC Boston reported the total handle tied to the infractions and noted the commission’s requirement that DraftKings repay deposits. For industry peers, the case underscored how state rules can diverge and how compliance gaps on card controls carry both financial and reputational costs. FanDuel’s ban reduces that exposure across its U.S. footprint.

Statehouses test the limits

Maine is the latest state to weigh a targeted prohibition on credit cards in online betting. Lawmakers are advancing Legislative Document 2080, which would keep online sportsbooks legal but block deposits on credit and other borrowing-linked cards. The proposal’s sponsor, Rep. Marc Malon, framed the bill as a guardrail against rapid debt accumulation in digital wagering, arguing that credit cards raise risks beyond those seen with cash or bank transfers. The measure arrives as the state expands regulated igaming and pairs growth with added safeguards.

Coverage of the bill has emphasized its consumer-protection rationale and echoes of Maine’s casino rules. In outlining the plan, local TV station WGME reported Malon’s case for parity with slot machine restrictions and the dangers of betting beyond one’s means, which he detailed in an on-air interview cited in Complete iGaming’s report on Maine’s proposal and in WGME’s original piece about banning credit card use in online sports betting. The Legislature’s summary page for LD 2080 provides bill status and text for reference at the Maine Legislature website.

Such state-level moves add pressure on national operators to standardize policies. A patchwork raises compliance costs and complicates product design. Adopting a uniform no-credit stance can simplify delivery and cut the risk of enforcement surprises when states enact or reinterpret restrictions.

Global experiments, mixed results

While U.S. debates center on debt and consumer harm, overseas case studies offer caution on outcomes and workarounds. In Australia, a 2024 ban on credit cards for online wagering appears to have had limited impact on the country’s heaviest gamblers. New research from the e61 Institute found most former card users simply switched to transaction accounts, keeping average spend high and sidestepping the need to borrow. The findings, summarized in analysis of Australia’s credit card betting ban, suggest the rule mainly inconvenienced casual bettors rather than curbing entrenched behavior. Researchers also flagged loopholes like cash advances, PayPal deposits and personal loans that remained available, though heavy users did not rely on them.

New Zealand is taking a different tack as it builds a regulated online casino market from the ground up. The government’s Online Casino Bill would cap licenses and prohibit credit card payments, part of a suite of concessions meant to rally parliamentary votes. Officials project meaningful license revenue but acknowledge the ban could test operator interest. The move illustrates how credit restrictions can become bargaining chips in legalization debates, not just after-the-fact compliance obligations.

Elsewhere, payment patterns shift when conventional rails close. Indonesia, where online gambling is illegal, has seen deposits move from banks and e-wallets to national QR transfers and crypto even as total gambling flows decline. Authorities detailed the pivot to QRIS and the use of crypto to split deposit and withdrawal paths, complicating enforcement. The change, chronicled in reporting on Indonesia’s payment shifts, highlights displacement risk if credit bans are not paired with broader controls and monitoring.

What is at stake for operators and regulators

FanDuel’s move narrows a prominent channel for frictionless deposits, which can reduce short-term handle but may protect customers from compounding losses and future collections disputes. It also positions the company ahead of potential state mandates and shields it from the kind of violations that drew record fines in Massachusetts. For lawmakers and regulators, the ban is a lever within a larger toolkit that includes affordability checks, self-exclusion, marketing limits and real-time monitoring of risky play.

The international record warns that a credit card ban alone may not significantly deter persistent, well-funded bettors. Still, removing access to borrowed funds can reduce acute harm for those at risk of spiraling debt and limit spikes tied to promotions or big events. As U.S. states evaluate outcomes, they will watch whether companies pair bans with tighter controls on alternative funding methods, clearer disclosures on fees and faster intervention when account behavior flags trouble. In that context, FanDuel’s policy is not an endpoint but an early marker in a wider recalibration of how Americans pay to place a bet.