Key points:
- DFS operator Underdog has filed a suit requesting an injunction and a temporary restraining order against California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta
- This action comes following reports that Bonta would be outlawing DFS in the state
- The operator has launched accusations of tribal lobbying, alongside additional contentions relating to legal definitions
Daily fantasy sports operator Underdog Fantasy has filed a motion to try and block potential action by California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, following reports that he could outlaw daily fantasy sports in the state.
Despite no action having yet been taken by Bonta, Underdog has filed a suit that states – among other things – that the Attorney General’s position has the potential to “poison a thriving industry that serves millions of Californians.”
A game of skill?
Naturally, the contention behind the subject stems from the fact that sports betting is illegal in the state of California – and Underdog currently offers fantasy sports betting in the region. However, as part of its introductory statement in the suit, Underdog argues: “All fantasy sports are contests of skill. To be successful, contestants must engage in significant research, taking into account statistics, matchups and all of the other factors that cause teams and athletes to succeed (or fail) across a set of games or throughout a season.”
The suit continues, stating: “Thus, even in states like California where sports betting is currently illegal, fantasy sports operate lawfully. Since 2015, the California Legislature has considered but not enacted legislation to regulate or expand California law to cover certain types of fantasy sports contests.”
Underdog contests the ‘opinion’
Also outlined as part of the filing, Underdog reiterates that the Attorney General’s power to issue opinions is limited to the scope of what can be defined within the law. As such, the operator also highlighted the blurred lines of legal definition within the bounds of gambling when it comes to daily fantasy sports, arguing that Bonta’s opinion cannot, therefore, be one that is rooted in any factual interpretation.
Accusations of tribal lobbying
Underdog has also turned on the state’s tribal operators as part of its offensive, stating that the Attorney General’s action would serve to maintain the market monopoly of a small number of Californian tribes.
Further, the suit's introduction states: “On information and belief, the tribes have met numerous times with Attorney General Bonta and his representatives and lobbied for the opinion to be issued.”
Good to know: Underdog currently has 500,000 Californian players and, in March, was valued at $1.2bn following investment from Spark Capital funding
Out of office
Indeed, an additional key point of contention argued by Underdog highlights that the Senator who made the request for Bonta’s opinion against fantasy sports, Scott Wilk, is no longer in officer due to his term ending in 2024. Underdog has cited this as a further supplemental argument as to why the change in legislation is no longer relevant or required.
Conclusively, the suit argues: “Because the Attorney General has a clear duty not to accept a request for, and not to issue, an opinion that raises a non-legal question, much less one submitted by a (now former) state legislator stepping outside his legislative lane, this Court should issue the requested writ of mandate prohibiting the Attorney General from issuing an opinion that responds to then-Senator Wilk’s request and should issue an injunction enforcing that prohibition.
“Moreover, because Underdog faces imminent irreparable harm if the Attorney General proceeds with issuance of the opinion, this Court should expeditiously issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Attorney General from issuing an opinion that responds to the request or that otherwise addresses the legality of digital fantasy sports platforms under California law.”
