Judge Dismisses Lawsuits Against DraftKings
In a 36-page opinion filed on March 23, Judge Joseph F. Leeson, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted defendant DraftKings’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, ruling that the online sports betting company, “has no duty of care toward Plaintiffs”.
In their class action complaint, several plaintiffs claimed to have developed gambling addictions as a result of the Defendant’s practices. Plaintiffs maintain that although they attempted to stop betting, DraftKings would lure them back with new promotions, marketing and VIP loyalty programs, causing them to suffer from “severe mental illnesses”. Plaintiffs made several claims that were dismissed by the judge including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, design defect, and failure to warn. Plaintiffs also asserted that DraftKings had a duty of care to its customers as “foreseeable victims of gambling addictions”; they also claimed that DraftKings had a fiduciary duty to them and that by cultivating “relationships of trust”, the company exploited their vulnerabilities. Dismissing DraftKings from the lawsuits, Judge Leeson decided that state law likely does not impose a duty on online casinos and sportsbooks to police customers’ gambling behavior and wrote:
“This court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not impose a duty on a casino to protect gamblers from gambling addictions. 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.”
