FanDuel seeks dismissal of US lawsuit brought under 300-year-old gambling law

Abi Bray

7 January 2026 at 5:15am UTC-5

Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Flutter Entertainment’s FanDuel will ask a US court later this week to dismiss a lawsuit that could expose major sportsbook operators to significant financial claims under a law dating back more than 300 years.

The case, filed last year in Washington, DC, by Delaware firm DC Gambling Recovery, targets FanDuel alongside rivals such as DraftKings and BetMGM. The claim relies on the Statute of Anne, an 18th-century law intended to allow gamblers to recover losses above a specific limit from the winning party.

Article continues below ad

DC Gambling Recovery argues that the statute entitles individuals who lost more than US$25 in a single sitting to reclaim their losses. There have also been additional claims that legislation that was introduced last year in the district’s budgetary process clarified that the statute does apply to sports wagering.

The defendants, including Betfair Interactive, which operates FanDuel and is owned by Flutter Entertainment, have requested that the court dismiss the case.

Washington, DC, attorney general Brian Schwalb has backed dismissal, saying later laws legalized sports betting and made the Statute of Anne irrelevant, a view the betting firms say was reinforced by amendments in the district’s Budget Support Act.

Article continues below ad

DC Gambling Recovery disputes this interpretation and has cited the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, claiming it restricted local authorities from authorizing sports betting schemes.

The hearing, initially scheduled for December, is now set to take place on Friday.

In December, DraftKings launched its own prediction market platform, DraftKings Predicts, in 38 states in its attempt to compete with prediction market operators, Kalshi and Polymarket.

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:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Why a colonial-era statute is back in play

The Statute of Anne, a British law from the early 1700s, was written to let people claw back excessive gambling losses from a winning party. That archaic remedy sits at the center of a modern fight in Washington, DC, where a private firm is testing whether a centuries-old tool can pry open the wallets of today’s sportsbook giants. The complaint argues the statute lets people who lost more than $25 in a sitting recover their losses, a threshold laughably out of step with today’s markets but potentially explosive if a court applies it to online sports betting. FanDuel and several rivals want the case tossed, pointing to later laws that legalized sports wagering and, they say, implicitly sidelined the old rule. DC’s attorney general has supported dismissal, underscoring a larger theme in sports betting’s post-PASPA era: when states and cities turned gambling into regulated business, they also accepted the policy tradeoffs that come with modern consumer protections and tax revenue.

The stakes go well beyond one courtroom. If the lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs could try to hunt down losses across a wide swath of bettors and time periods, while operators would face discovery on marketing, risk algorithms and responsible-gaming controls. That threat explains why the industry is pushing to close the door early—and why some local lawmakers have weighed in before judges do.

Council maneuvering and a budget twist

DC policymakers have already considered a legislative fix that could sideline the Statute of Anne in the sports betting context. As reported in coverage of DC lawmakers revisiting the 300-year-old law, the Council weighed whether to clarify that the statute does not apply to modern sportsbooks. The move followed warnings from counsel for the Delaware LLC driving the litigation, who argued that a clean application of the statute could steer hundreds of millions into city coffers. The political calculus is stark: rewrite the law to protect a regulated industry and avert sweeping liability, or leave the door open to claims that could deliver a one-time windfall but potentially destabilize the wagering market.

The budget process became the vehicle for the policy debate. Amendments included in a Budget Support Act were framed by operators as confirmation that the district’s contemporary regime displaced the old loss-recovery remedy. Plaintiffs countered that Congress’ former federal ban on state-sanctioned sports wagering narrowed what cities could authorize in the first place. The legal clash has turned a legislative footnote into a pivotal interpretive fight about which rules govern and when, and whether retroactive exposure is fair game in a sector the government itself invited to set up shop.

Consumer lawsuits expand beyond the Beltway

The DC case is part of a patchwork of legal pressure building on fantasy and sportsbook operators nationwide. In California, a coalition of plaintiff firms has accused major daily fantasy brands of running illegal sports betting under a different label. The filings, described in class action lawsuits targeting DFS operators, followed Attorney General Rob Bonta’s formal opinion deeming many fantasy offerings unlawful under state law. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary and injunctive relief against big names and eyeing additional targets as they press the boundaries between fantasy contests and wagering.

The California actions matter for the DC dispute because they show regulators and private bar alike testing fresh theories against companies that grew fast under a patchwork of state rules. If California courts accept the premise that certain fantasy products are sports betting by another name, operators could be forced to tailor or pull offerings in a massive market. That outcome would embolden plaintiffs elsewhere to reframe old statutes and consumer laws for the modern betting economy—precisely the playbook unfolding in the nation’s capital.

City enforcement meets federal courts

Municipal legal strategies are also evolving. Baltimore sued FanDuel and DraftKings under a local consumer protection ordinance, claiming the companies exploited vulnerable gamblers with targeted promotions and deceptive “bonus” offers. The city’s allegations, detailed in Baltimore’s exploitation lawsuit, cast the marketing engines of leading sportsbooks as vectors of harm. The operators deny wrongdoing and say they comply with state oversight.

In a telling jurisdictional move, the defendants shifted the case to federal court, as outlined in the removal filing to Maryland federal court. The transfer relies on diversity and the amount in controversy to secure federal jurisdiction, a common defense tactic that can change the tempo and scope of discovery. Baltimore must argue for a remand if it wants a hometown venue. Regardless of forum, the case signals that cities will not wait for state regulators when they see consumer harm. It also foreshadows how local enforcement claims can intersect with broader class actions and state AG opinions, piling pressure on the same marketing practices from multiple angles.

Regulatory chill from prediction markets

Even as courts weigh novel consumer and statutory theories, regulators are drawing new red lines. Nevada’s gaming watchdog accepted the surrender or withdrawal of FanDuel and DraftKings’ licenses and applications after warning that contracts on sports events and other outcomes offered through prediction markets count as wagering under state law. The development, captured in coverage of FanDuel and DraftKings exiting Nevada, followed similar warnings in other states and enforcement against event-contract platforms. The message was blunt: partnerships or activity tied to such markets could threaten licensing in the nation’s gaming capital.

That crackdown reverberates in the DC case. Plaintiffs frame sportsbooks’ expansion into new products and aggressive promotions as evidence of overreach; regulators’ skepticism about event contracts bolsters that narrative. At the same time, operators argue they are navigating unclear, evolving lines and that legislatures—not courts applying a Queen Anne–era rule—should draw the boundaries for modern wagering.

What the next ruling could unlock

The forthcoming decision on dismissal will determine whether the Statute of Anne theory gets a full test in discovery or is halted at the threshold. If the case proceeds, plaintiffs will seek records on losses, promotional targeting, and how operators identify and manage at-risk bettors—issues already central in California and Baltimore. A green light could invite copycat filings in other jurisdictions with similar dormant statutes or flexible consumer laws.

If the court throws out the case, expect more legislative activity to close perceived loopholes and codify that contemporary sports betting frameworks displace antique loss-recovery schemes. Either outcome will shape how operators calibrate promotions, segment users and launch adjacent products like prediction or market-style offerings. For cities and states, the choice is between one-time recoveries through litigation and steady tax streams through regulated growth, with consumer protections and political accountability on the line.

Put together, DC’s statutory skirmish, California’s DFS challenges, Baltimore’s municipal push and Nevada’s regulatory stance trace a single thread: the rapid normalization of sports betting has outpaced the legal architecture around it. The next few rulings and legislative tweaks will say whether courts or councils take the lead in stitching that framework together—and how costly the learning curve becomes for the industry and its customers.