DraftKings and FanDuel have filed legal documents asserting that two Philadelphia men, who are suing them alongside the NFL and Genius Sports, cannot invoke Pennsylvania's consumer protection law to claim that the sportsbooks' mobile applications led to their gambling addictions.
In a detailed 111-page filing, attorneys for FanDuel, part of the Flutter brand, argued that since FanDuel offers a free online application, it does not qualify as a 'seller,' nor is its application a 'product' under Pennsylvania's product liability laws.
Similarly, DraftKings presented a comparable argument in its own 106-page response. The lawsuit, initiated by Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson in March, has gained significant media attention, particularly after reports surfaced about a FanDuel VIP host facilitating a video message from Bryce Harper for Thompson.
The case has sparked interest due to the plaintiffs' unique product liability claim, which is a relatively new defense in lawsuits concerning gambling issues. However, both sportsbooks contend that the two-year statute of limitations prevents the plaintiffs from pursuing their case.
DraftKings stated in its response that the complaint indicates the plaintiffs were aware of their alleged injuries and their causes long before they filed the lawsuit in March 2026.
All four parties involved have submitted motions to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit centers on microbetting, a form of live betting on specific game events. Sage and Thompson's attorneys argue that DraftKings and FanDuel have exploited advancements in mobile technology and artificial intelligence to create an addictive gambling experience that entices customers.
According to the complaint, Thompson primarily engaged in NFL microbetting, placing approximately $23 million in bets and losing nearly $1.9 million. Sage's total losses exceeded $170,000 across both platforms.
The plaintiffs' attorneys highlighted the historical context of legalized sports betting in the U.S., noting that for decades, placing a bet required visiting a sportsbook in Nevada and dealing with a cumbersome cash transaction. In contrast, online sports betting apps have streamlined this process significantly.
The amended complaint states, “Given the known capacity of rapid, high-speed wagers to captivate gamblers and maintain their engagement in continuous betting, DraftKings and FanDuel have integrated various features to promote microbetting.”
FanDuel countered the plaintiffs' assertion that sports betting was safer prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act eight years ago, arguing that the regulation aimed to manage a previously unregulated environment that included illegal bookies and offshore casinos, ultimately benefiting both players and taxpayers.
Additionally, both DraftKings and FanDuel contend that the state court is not the appropriate venue for the plaintiffs' claims, asserting that Pennsylvania's Gaming Control Board is the designated regulatory authority for overseeing all aspects of sports betting and other regulated gambling activities.