One day before a major lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania state court accusing sportsbooks of using data provided by the NFL to offer a “known addictive product” and to use VIP hosts to encourage two people to keep betting, leading to huge losses and gambling disorders, a Pennsylvania federal judge threw out a different, yet similar, lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Leeson ruled Monday that state law doesn’t force sportsbooks to police the habits of their customers, and thus dismissed DraftKings from a class-action lawsuit claiming its tactics via marketing and VIP plans caused bettors to develop gambling addiction, according to a Law360 report.
The case is Macek et al. v. DraftKings Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the plaintiffs accused DraftKings VIP hosts of repeatedly luring people back into the sportsbook.
Judge Leeson, in absence of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the issue, said he had to “envision” how that court would handle it, per the report.
And he was very clear.
“This court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not impose a duty on a casino to protect gamblers from gambling addictions,” Judge Leeson said in his opinion. “Moreover, this court, sitting in diversity, will not expand on existing duties in Pennsylvania by creating a new duty of care that could have far-reaching public policy consequences. The court finds that DraftKings has no duty of care to protect plaintiffs from spending too much money or from developing or fueling a gambling addiction.”
Leeson went further, saying the plaintiffs’ claim that they had “trust and confidence” in their VIP hosts was not enough to prove DraftKings did them dirty.
“At most, the facts plead arm’s-length commercial transactions between the VIP hosts and plaintiffs; however, arm’s-length transactions do not create fiduciary relationships simply because one party has a greater level of skill or expertise,” Judge Leeson said.
Same, but different
Leeson’s opinion hadn’t had time to cool before the Public Health Advocacy Institute filed its lawsuit, also involving DraftKings.
The PHAI complaint, filed Tuesday in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, centers on two Pennsylvania men, Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson, who the lawsuit says lost more than $2 million combined after developing gambling disorders while betting with DraftKings and FanDuel.
And in that sense, the case looks a lot like the one Leeson just dismissed. Different plaintiffs and a different legal theory, but many of the same underlying allegations: Pennsylvania bettors, VIP hosts, escalating losses, gambling addiction, and claims that the companies continued the relationship with perks, personal attention, and ongoing outreach even as the warning signs mounted.
According to ESPN, both men were assigned VIP hosts who maintained frequent, personalized contact and offered perks as their losses grew. In Sage’s case, that included photos sent by his DraftKings host from sporting events and help arranging accommodations for a bachelor party in Atlantic City. Thompson, meanwhile, was encouraged to take breaks after losing streaks, then later contacted about what was described as an “emergency” that turned out to be a Super Bowl gift package.
ESPN also reported that Sage placed himself on Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion list on March 15, 2025, the same month he was diagnosed with a gambling disorder, but continued receiving messages from his DraftKings VIP host.
Where PHAI diverges from the other lawsuit is in how it frames the case.
According to the PHAI press release, the complaint does not argue that sportsbooks failed in a duty to protect bettors. Instead, it characterizes online sports betting as a product that is “unreasonably dangerous,” alleging it is designed to encourage compulsive use, particularly through features like live, in-game betting.
The lawsuit names DraftKings and FanDuel as defendants, along with the NFL and Genius Sports, the NFL’s data provider.
The complaint argues that this system contributes to increased betting activity and user engagement.
Whether that approach will succeed where the other case failed remains to be seen.
