DraftKings, FanDuel Face 4 Addiction Suits in Pennsylvania
Four Pennsylvania residents who say they developed gambling addictions are suing DraftKings and FanDuel over the design of the betting apps themselves, and all four cases were removed to federal court in Philadelphia on September 16, 2026. The theory is product liability: the app as a defective product rather than an illegal bet. The sharpest allegation is a transatlantic one, that Flutter capped UK slot spins at ten pounds while FanDuel in the US allowed spins up to $800. Nothing here is proven and neither company has answered.
We pulled all four state-court complaints from the federal dockets, where they are attached to the removal papers as Exhibit A, and read them in full. They run 47 to 55 pages each, they were written by the same firm, and they plead the same eight counts. That is how we check everything we publish.
What do the complaints actually allege?
Product liability is the interesting part of the pleading. Rather than suing over an illegal bet or an unpaid payout, the plaintiffs treat the app itself as a defective product. Each of the four complaints pleads the same eight counts:
- Breach of warranty, defective design
- Breach of warranty, failure to warn
- Negligent design
- Negligent failure to warn
- Negligence
- Intentional misrepresentation
- Unjust enrichment
- Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. sections 201 et seq.
The opening paragraph of the Woodson complaint sets out the mechanics it blames. Sports gambling apps, it says, "track every user interaction including wagers placed, time spent on the app, and even moments of hesitation to create hyper-personalized algorithms", then "bombard gamblers, including gamblers that they know or should know are problem gamblers, with targeted notifications and advertisements precisely when they're most susceptible, like late at night or after a big loss." It names "risk-free bets" and deposit bonuses "that mask losses while encouraging larger wagers", push notifications that "direct the user to revisit the app after they have been away or inactive", and "VIP" concierge programs "offering lavish perks, private account managers, and accelerated payouts".
The complaints also draw a UK comparison, and it carries the one number in the filing that needs no expert to read. Citing a July 2024 Reuters investigation, they allege that Flutter introduced a ten-pound-per-spin cap on UK online slot games in 2021 after its own internal data showed that "customer risk levels may increase more sharply" at higher stakes, mandates deposit limits for UK customers under 25, and curtailed its UK VIP programme. In the US over the same period, the complaints allege, "FanDuel permitted spins up to $800 with no equivalent age-based stake restrictions, applied no mandatory deposit limits for users under 25, and operated a VIP program with compensation structures tied to 'increas[ing] player activity and driv[ing] revenue.'"
One more allegation matters to anyone reading bonus copy. The complaints say both companies used "risk-free bet" and "free bet" language as primary acquisition tools until at least early 2023, that a losing first bet returned not cash but non-withdrawable credits carrying wagering requirements, and that in March 2023 the American Gaming Association, of which both were then members, amended its Responsible Marketing Code to ban the phrase "risk-free" outright. The complaints allege the companies kept using it while that code was being revised and after regulators in Ohio and Massachusetts had already acted. Credits instead of cash, with a playthrough attached, is the same structure our guide to sweepstakes casino bonuses sets out on the sweeps side.
Who is suing, and over how much?
Three of the four filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in late July; the fourth filed in Chester County. All four are represented by Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz PLC of Pensacola, Florida, with Francesca K. Burne signing as Pennsylvania counsel. The figures below are the plaintiffs' own allegations of lifetime amounts wagered and net losses, not findings.
| Plaintiff | Federal case | Alleged DraftKings play | Alleged FanDuel play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christopher Evans (Philadelphia) | 2:26-cv-07168 | Over $2,100,000 wagered, net losses about $81,000 | Not a defendant in this case |
| Michael Santos (Coatesville) | 2:26-cv-07176 | Over $1,164,000 wagered, net losses about $58,000 | Nearly $7,000 wagered, losses nearly $1,500 |
| Reynaldo Rivera (Philadelphia) | 2:26-cv-07179 | Over $1,600,000 wagered, net losses about $97,000 as of April 2026 | Over $841,000 wagered, net losses about $40,000 as of April 2026 |
| Sherree Woodson (Philadelphia) | 2:26-cv-07181 | Over $985,000 wagered, net losses about $55,000 as of April 2026 | Over $571,000 wagered, net losses about $22,000 as of April 2026 |
Two allegations stand out because they describe safeguards failing rather than being absent. Santos "voluntarily placed himself on a self-exclusion list with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023", and alleges that a DraftKings "VIP" account manager "would call Plaintiff, provide bonus bets, and attempt to have Plaintiff attend meet and greets with the Philadelphia Flyers or events, despite Plaintiff expressly stating he did not want to continue gambling." Rivera alleges he tried "placing himself on the self-exclusion list, but Plaintiff was unable to cope with the interactions and outreach from the Defendants and returned to Defendants' apps." Each complaint also describes serious mental-health consequences, and Santos's alleges suicidal ideation.
Where do the four cases stand now?
All four cases were removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 16, 2026, and docketed as diversity cases with nature of suit 365, personal injury product liability. In the Woodson case the notice of removal was filed by Flutter Entertainment PLC, FanDuel PA LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC, FanDuel Inc. and FanDuel Group Parent LLC, with a $405 filing fee. Cozen O'Connor entered a federal appearance for DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming, Inc. the next day. Moving a state-court gambling case into federal court is the same play DraftKings ran two weeks earlier, when it removed a South Carolina suit brought under a 1712 gambling statute on September 2.
Then four near-identical complaints scattered. Read on September 19, 2026, the public docket records name three different judges across the four cases: District Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. on Woodson and Rivera, Mia Roberts Perez on Santos, and Gail A. Weilheimer on Evans. An "Order Reassigning Case" was entered in Woodson and Rivera on September 18 and in neither of the other two, and the text of those orders is not free on the public mirror, so we cannot say where those two cases have landed or whether anyone is moving to pull the four together.
What did happen in all four is the same filing on the same evening. The Eastern District's own electronic filing feed timestamps a stipulation in every one of the four cases on September 18, within three minutes of each other in Santos, Rivera and Woodson at 19:50, 19:51 and 19:53 GMT, then in Evans at 22:35. That is what a coordinated agreement between the same two law firms looks like on a docket. None of the four documents is free on the public mirror, so we have the clerk's one-word label and nothing at all about what was agreed. It is not an answer and it is not a ruling.
We found no answer, no motion to dismiss and no public statement from either company on these four cases, so there is no operator account of any of it. The complaints are the only source for every allegation above.
Why does this matter if you play sweepstakes casinos?
Because the mechanics on trial are the ones sweeps apps use every day, and sweeps players have fewer of the backstops these plaintiffs say failed them.
Read the list again: push notifications after a period of inactivity, bonuses that reset on a schedule, escalating VIP tiers with a named account manager, promotions triggered by spending a certain amount. That is a description of a regulated Pennsylvania sportsbook, and it is also a description of the daily-bonus and VIP structures we document on sweeps sites, including the daily bonus whose redeemable half shrinks until you buy a coin package, welcome offers whose free spins are gated behind a purchase and a loyalty ladder that stops paying below 15,000 XP a week. The "risk-free" allegation travels too: the phrase a US trade body banned for licensed sportsbooks in 2023 has no equivalent policeman on the sweeps side, where promotional copy answers to no marketing code at all.
The difference is the safety net. Santos and Rivera could put themselves on a Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board self-exclusion list because DraftKings and FanDuel hold Pennsylvania licences. No such list covers sweepstakes casinos anywhere, because no state licenses them: self-exclusion on a sweeps site is whatever that operator's own account-closure page says it is, and there is no regulator to complain to when it does not work. Where Pennsylvania stands on the sweeps model is on our Pennsylvania state page, and the tools that do exist are in our responsible play guide.
The second difference is the courtroom. These four plaintiffs got into court at all. Most sweeps terms route a dispute into private arbitration instead, which is why the 30-day arbitration opt-out window is the most useful clause in a rulebook almost nobody reads. If you are choosing where to play, our ranked list of sweepstakes casinos scores brands on terms and payouts rather than on bonus size.
Sources & documents
- Exhibit A to the notice of removal in Woodson v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:26-cv-07181 (E.D. Pa.) - 54 pages, the Philadelphia County complaint dated July 24, 2026; source of the opening allegations, the eight counts, the UK comparison and the Woodson figures
- Exhibit A in Rivera v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:26-cv-07179 - 55 pages, Philadelphia County, dated July 24, 2026; source of the Rivera figures and the self-exclusion allegation
- Exhibit A in Santos v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:26-cv-07176 - 53 pages, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, docket 2026-07200-TT, attested July 29, 2026; source of the Gaming Control Board self-exclusion and VIP account-manager allegations
- Exhibit A in Evans v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:26-cv-07168 - 47 pages, Philadelphia County Case ID 260702927, filed July 24, 2026; the one complaint naming DraftKings without FanDuel, and the source of the Cozen O'Connor appearances on the state docket
- CourtListener docket, Woodson v. DraftKings Inc. (E.D. Pa.) - read September 19, 2026; source of the removal entry, the removing parties, the $405 filing fee, the nature-of-suit code, the Cozen O'Connor federal appearance at entry 7, and the bare September 18 entries 13 and 14
- Eastern District of Pennsylvania electronic filing feed - the court's own list, read September 19, 2026; the source of the four September 18 stipulation timestamps and of the fact that only Woodson and Rivera carry a reassignment order
Everything attributed to the plaintiffs above is an allegation in a filed complaint. It is unproven, DraftKings and FanDuel have filed no response on these dockets, and we found no second independent source for the underlying events.
21+ only. If gambling stops being fun, call or text 1-800-GAMBLER. Responsible gaming resources.
Sources & documents
- storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662123/gov.uscourts.paed.662123.1.3.pdf
- storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662121/gov.uscourts.paed.662121.1.3.pdf
- storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662118/gov.uscourts.paed.662118.1.3.pdf
- storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.662095/gov.uscourts.paed.662095.1.3.pdf
- www.courtlistener.com/docket/74804467/woodson-v-draftkings-inc/
- ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rss_outside.pl
Every factual claim in this article maps to one of the sources above - that is the publishing bar, not a goal.
FAQ
Has a court found that DraftKings or FanDuel designed an addictive app?
No. These are allegations in four filed complaints. No court has ruled on them, neither company has filed an answer on the public docket, and nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing.
Is this a class action?
No. Each of the four is an individual personal-injury suit brought by one named plaintiff seeking that plaintiff's own damages. There is no class, no claim form and nothing to join.
Do these suits involve sweepstakes casinos?
No. No sweepstakes operator is named in any of the four complaints, and none of them mentions Sweeps Coins or the dual-currency model. We cover it because the design features being litigated are the same ones sweeps apps use.
Can I self-exclude from a sweepstakes casino?
Not through a state list. State self-exclusion programmes such as Pennsylvania's cover licensed operators only. On a sweeps site your options are the operator's own account-closure or cooldown tools, which vary by brand and are not overseen by any regulator.
Free SC drops, new casinos, and law changes - for your state.
One email a week. No spam, unsubscribe anytime. If your state bans sweeps, you get law updates instead of offers - that's the point.