FanDuel, DraftKings seek dismissal of Philly betting suit

FanDuel and DraftKings filed motions in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court asking judges to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two men who say the operators’ mobile apps caused them to develop gambling addictions. The suit was filed in March and later amended.

The plaintiffs, Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson, sued the two sportsbooks along with the NFL and data provider Genius Sports. The amended complaint alleges the companies pushed high-speed, in-game wagers known as microbets and used mobile technology and artificial intelligence to make those markets highly addictive.

According to the complaint, Thompson placed roughly $23 million in bets on microbets and lost nearly $1.9 million. Sage’s combined losses on the two platforms exceed $170,000, the filing says.

FanDuel and DraftKings argued the apps are not subject to product-liability law in Pennsylvania. In a 111-page response, FanDuel described its offering as a “free online application” and said it is not a “seller” of a “product” under state law. DraftKings made a similar point in a 106-page filing, arguing the consumer protection statute the plaintiffs rely on does not apply to the companies’ apps.

Both operators also said the claims are barred by Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations. DraftKings wrote that the complaint shows the plaintiffs knew of their alleged injuries and their alleged cause years before they filed suit in March 2026.

FanDuel urged the court to defer to state regulators, noting Pennsylvania law delegates oversight of legal gambling to the Gaming Control Board and arguing that enforcement of betting rules belongs to that agency rather than to private lawsuits. FanDuel separately moved to compel arbitration, saying Sage and Thompson repeatedly agreed to its terms and conditions when creating and updating accounts. FanDuel’s filing notes Thompson last accepted updated terms on Dec. 16, 2025, about 14 weeks before he filed the complaint.

The NFL and Genius Sports also asked to be dismissed. The league described itself as an indirect licensor of game data and argued that defending a broad tort suit would raise due-process concerns. Genius argued its role supplying real-time statistics is too remote to be the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ losses, pointing to app design choices and the plaintiffs’ own repeated decisions to wager.

The complaint names five individuals who acted as VIP hosts for the plaintiffs. One, Shaun Gordon, is identified as a current DraftKings employee; others are listed as former employees of DraftKings and FanDuel. The case attracted attention after allegations that a VIP host arranged for a player to record a video for one of the plaintiffs via a paid platform.

Plaintiffs’ counsel pushed back in court filings. Andrew Rainer, litigation director at the Public Health Advocacy Institute, wrote that the defendants’ motions attempt to place responsibility on others rather than on the companies the complaint holds responsible.

All four corporate defendants filed motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ lawyers have until Aug. 5 to file replies. The litigation raises questions about whether online betting apps qualify as “products” under state consumer-protection and product-liability law and whether such claims belong before state regulators or in private court.