Lawsuit alleges DraftKings violates numerous states’ igaming laws

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/09/21: Iowa man asks for judge’s decision in US$14 million DraftKings lawsuit 2025/07/07: Consumer protection law firms in California launch lawsuit against DFS operators 2025/12/19: Coinbase sues three states over prediction market regulation 2025/05/15: DraftKings and FanDuel Baltimore lawsuit removed to federal court

The Backstory

How DraftKings’ legal risk escalated

The class action targeting DraftKings over alleged failures to enforce cooling-off periods did not emerge in a vacuum. It lands amid a wave of litigation and regulatory pushes that question how modern wagering products are designed, marketed and governed. In recent months, plaintiffs and public officials have advanced claims that operators exploit vulnerable bettors, blur lines between fantasy contests and sports betting, and sidestep state oversight by invoking federal regimes. That mix of consumer protection arguments, jurisdictional fights and definitional disputes has created a fragmented and fast-moving battlefield that now frames the stakes for DraftKings.

Several threads converge. Consumer lawsuits contend platforms use product design and promotions to keep users betting and to override friction meant to deter impulsive play. Cities and states are probing whether offers are deceptive or whether contests are actually sports wagers. At the same time, prediction market firms and their backers are suing to block state actions by arguing federal law preempts local gambling rules. The result is a legal map where the venue often shapes the outcome—and where operators must defend product mechanics as much as they defend promotional practices.

Claims of consumer harm move to center stage

The core allegation in the DraftKings class action—that the platform bypassed mandated waiting periods before users could raise limits—echoes a broader pivot toward consumer protection claims. Plaintiffs increasingly argue that operators’ product choices, not just their marketing, cause predictable harm.

This is evident in the high-profile case brought by an Iowa bettor who says DraftKings improperly canceled five wagers placed during the weather-shortened Pebble Beach Pro-Am. He is now asking a judge to decide the matter without a full trial, arguing that the wagers should stand despite the operator’s reliance on its house rules. The dispute, which could test the weight courts give to platform terms in fast-moving markets, is set for trial in 2026, but the plaintiff’s request for a shortcut ruling raises the stakes sooner. See the filing on the Iowa bettor seeking a summary judgment over canceled US$14 million wagers.

Municipal enforcement is also sharpening. Baltimore alleged that DraftKings and FanDuel violated the city’s consumer protection ordinance by luring vulnerable gamblers with bonuses and exclusive offers designed to keep them betting. The operators removed the case to federal court, citing corporate domicile and the amount in controversy, an early procedural move that underscores how companies try to shape the forum before the merits are heard. Read more about the Baltimore consumer protection case removed to federal court.

Where fantasy ends and sports betting begins

California has become a flashpoint over how to classify daily fantasy contests that look and feel like wagering on player outcomes. Several consumer law firms filed class actions accusing major daily fantasy operators of running illegal sports betting under state law. The complaints seek monetary and injunctive relief and argue that companies mislabel gambling products to avoid licensing and oversight. Shortly after those filings, the state’s attorney general issued an opinion declaring such activities illegal, giving plaintiffs a fresh hook to argue that operators must either exit the market or change their products. Details are in the California class actions alleging DFS is illegal sports betting.

For operators like DraftKings, the California actions matter even if they are not direct defendants in every case. They signal a willingness by plaintiffs and officials to revisit long-standing carve-outs for fantasy contests and to press courts to treat head-to-head or pick’em offerings as wagers. That approach could ripple into other states that have avoided taking a position. It also strengthens the hand of litigants in other jurisdictions who claim that product design choices—such as frictionless limit increases—undermine statutory consumer safeguards.

Forum fights shape outcomes before merits

The push and pull over where cases are heard is becoming a strategic battleground. Operators often remove city or state actions to federal court, seeking a more predictable forum and the possibility of consolidating multi-state disputes. Baltimore’s case illustrates the point: removal hinged on corporate citizenship and the amount in controversy, a common path for national brands facing localized claims. See the federal removal in the Baltimore suit.

Plaintiffs, in turn, may seek summary judgments to accelerate decisions or leverage state consumer statutes that can offer stronger remedies. The Iowa bettor’s bid for a court ruling ahead of trial aims to narrow the dispute to whether house rules can negate wagers after the fact. If courts favor consumers on these threshold issues, operators could face higher litigation risk across parallel cases. If courts side with platforms, plaintiffs may pivot to regulatory complaints or legislative fixes that harden cooling-off requirements and limit unilateral voiding of bets.

Prediction markets test federal-state lines

Outside traditional sportsbooks, prediction markets are probing the boundary between commodities regulation and state gambling law. Coinbase sued three states—Michigan, Illinois and Connecticut—arguing they lack authority to regulate prediction market platforms that it says fall under federal oversight. The company joined other market participants contesting cease-and-desist orders that accuse platforms of offering unlicensed sports gambling. The cases could decide whether federal commodities law preempts state actions when event contracts resemble wagers. Review Coinbase’s lawsuits against Michigan, Illinois and Connecticut over prediction market regulation.

Kalshi, one of the sector’s most prominent players, won a temporary pause against a Connecticut order that sought to block its operations. A federal judge barred the state from enforcing its cease-and-desist while the case proceeds, lending early support to Kalshi’s argument that it operates under a federal framework overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That interim relief is narrow but significant, signaling that courts may entertain limits on state reach into federally regulated venues. Read about Kalshi’s temporary pause against a Connecticut cease-and-desist.

These prediction market fights, while distinct from sportsbook cases, inform the broader environment in which DraftKings is being challenged. If courts elevate federal preemption in adjacent markets, states may respond by tightening consumer protection enforcement against clearly licensed sportsbooks, using product features like cooling-off periods as bright-line obligations.

The stakes for operators and regulators

Taken together, the emerging litigation map suggests higher compliance costs and tighter product constraints for operators. Consumer protection claims target how platforms implement safeguards and disclosures, not just whether wagers are fair. Efforts to reclassify fantasy contests press for licensing and taxes. Jurisdictional jockeying influences timelines and leverage.

For regulators, these cases test the durability of state frameworks in a landscape of hybrid products and national platforms. Courts will decide whether internal “house rules” can override statutory protections, whether fantasy contests cross into sports betting, and how far states can go when federal agencies oversee related markets. The outcome will shape not only DraftKings’ exposure in states named by plaintiffs but also the rulebook for how operators design limits, handle errors and engage high-risk users.