Difference between revisions of "Gambling cases"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(a start) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Gambling cases''' in court as of February 2025 include: | '''Gambling cases''' in court as of February 2025 include: | ||
| − | *''Patel v. FanDuel'' | + | *''Patel v. FanDuel'' (S.D.N.Y.), as reported by Bloomberg Law, the plaintiff “alleges that FanDuel ignored its own responsible gaming protocols and 'actively and intentionally targeted and preyed' on him with incentives to feed his addiction.”<ref name="B">https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/fanduel-sued-by-convicted-nfl-executive-over-gambling-addiction</ref> |
| − | *''Antar v. MGM Resorts International Inc, BetMGM LLC.MGM Resorts International et al.'' (argued Dec. 10, 2024 before the [[Third Circuit]], No. 24-1364, on appeal from D.N.J.) | + | *''Antar v. MGM Resorts International Inc, BetMGM LLC.MGM Resorts International et al.'' (argued Dec. 10, 2024 before the [[Third Circuit]], No. 24-1364, on appeal from D.N.J.), based on allegations that defendants "constantly lured him to bet despite knowing that he had an addiction" as reported by Bloomberg Law.<ref name="B"/> |
*''KalshiEx v. CFTC'' (argued Jan. 17, 2025, before the [[D.C. Circuit]]) - "At issue is KalshiEx LLC’s (Kalshi) ability to list political event contracts for trading. Previously, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order disapproving of Kalshi’s attempts to offer such contracts."<ref>https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/kalshi-v-cftc-challenges-contracts-on-political-events</ref> The district court held for KalshiEx on summary judgment (Sept. 6, 2024), ruling that the CFTC exceeded its authority under the federal statute. The appellate court seemed skeptical of the broad claim made by the CFTC to authority. The appellate decision could affect sports-based contracts and [[sports gambling]] in general. | *''KalshiEx v. CFTC'' (argued Jan. 17, 2025, before the [[D.C. Circuit]]) - "At issue is KalshiEx LLC’s (Kalshi) ability to list political event contracts for trading. Previously, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order disapproving of Kalshi’s attempts to offer such contracts."<ref>https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2025/kalshi-v-cftc-challenges-contracts-on-political-events</ref> The district court held for KalshiEx on summary judgment (Sept. 6, 2024), ruling that the CFTC exceeded its authority under the federal statute. The appellate court seemed skeptical of the broad claim made by the CFTC to authority. The appellate decision could affect sports-based contracts and [[sports gambling]] in general. | ||
| − | *'' | + | *''US States v. Meta et al.'' |
*''D'Alessandro v. DraftKings''<ref>https://www.lawinc.com/draftkings-sued-gambling-addiction-lawsuit</ref> | *''D'Alessandro v. DraftKings''<ref>https://www.lawinc.com/draftkings-sued-gambling-addiction-lawsuit</ref> | ||
Revision as of 01:44, February 4, 2025
Gambling cases in court as of February 2025 include:
- Patel v. FanDuel (S.D.N.Y.), as reported by Bloomberg Law, the plaintiff “alleges that FanDuel ignored its own responsible gaming protocols and 'actively and intentionally targeted and preyed' on him with incentives to feed his addiction.”[1]
- Antar v. MGM Resorts International Inc, BetMGM LLC.MGM Resorts International et al. (argued Dec. 10, 2024 before the Third Circuit, No. 24-1364, on appeal from D.N.J.), based on allegations that defendants "constantly lured him to bet despite knowing that he had an addiction" as reported by Bloomberg Law.[1]
- KalshiEx v. CFTC (argued Jan. 17, 2025, before the D.C. Circuit) - "At issue is KalshiEx LLC’s (Kalshi) ability to list political event contracts for trading. Previously, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order disapproving of Kalshi’s attempts to offer such contracts."[2] The district court held for KalshiEx on summary judgment (Sept. 6, 2024), ruling that the CFTC exceeded its authority under the federal statute. The appellate court seemed skeptical of the broad claim made by the CFTC to authority. The appellate decision could affect sports-based contracts and sports gambling in general.
- US States v. Meta et al.
- D'Alessandro v. DraftKings[3]