FanDuel Class Action in California Withdrawn but Might Come Back
Summary
California resident Martin Beltran filed a class action in July alleging that FanDuel’s daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests are gambling, not games of skill, and therefore unlawful in the state. The suit accused FanDuel of breaching California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the state’s criminal wagering statutes, and sought to recover funds spent by California users.
On 8 September Beltran filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; the case was dropped without prejudice and the parties signed a tolling agreement, meaning the claim can be refiled later. Such moves often signal settlement talks, though neither side has confirmed negotiations.
The dispute occurs against a backdrop of California scepticism towards expanded sports betting: voters rejected a 2022 measure to legalise it, state officials have opined that DFS may be illegal, and tribal operators—who control much of the state’s gaming—remain influential. While FanDuel has offered DFS in California since 2015, the company’s ability to continue doing so remains uncertain should plaintiffs refile or regulators act.
Key Points
- Martin Beltran filed a class action in July claiming FanDuel’s DFS contests amount to illegal gambling in California.
- Claims included violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and criminal wagering statutes.
- Beltran voluntarily dismissed the suit on 8 September; the dismissal was without prejudice, so it can be refiled.
- The parties signed a tolling agreement, extending the window to bring claims and suggesting possible settlement talks.
- California has resisted legal sports betting (voters rejected a 2022 measure) and state officials have signalled DFS may be unlawful.
- Tribal gaming operators hold substantial influence in Sacramento, complicating expansion prospects for FanDuel and other online operators.
Why should I read this?
Short version: if you use FanDuel in California or follow gambling regulation, this matters. The case was paused, not killed — and that tolling agreement is the legal equivalent of “don’t relax yet.” It could come back and change whether DFS stays available in the state or forces settlements that reshape how operators run contests here.
Context and Relevance
The story sits at the intersection of litigation risk and regulatory resistance. California’s clear reluctance to broaden sports betting, plus recent state opinions calling DFS illegal, mean this isn’t just one lawsuit among many — it could set precedent or trigger regulatory action that affects how major DFS and sportsbook operators do business in the US’s largest market. Industry watchers, operators, investors and California players should keep an eye on any refiling or settlement news.