Massachusetts Court Allows DraftKings Bonus Lawsuit to Proceed

A Massachusetts court has ruled that a class action lawsuit against DraftKings can move forward, rejecting the sportsbook’s attempt to dismiss claims that its $1,000 deposit bonus promotion used deceptive terms. The decision clears the path for a jury trial on allegations that customers who met wagering requirements but not deposit thresholds were wrongfully denied bonuses.

What Happened

The court sided with plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Sean Harris, represented by the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), in finding that DraftKings’ promotional language created sufficient ambiguity to warrant jury consideration. The core dispute centers on whether the sportsbook’s $1,000 deposit bonus terms were presented clearly enough to avoid misleading customers about eligibility requirements.

DraftKings attempted to dismiss the case by submitting visual evidence of the promotion as it appeared to users. The court, however, found a critical flaw in this defense: the evidence consisted of recreations rather than screenshots or documentation of what initial players actually saw when they encountered the offer. This distinction matters legally. Recreated images don’t prove the original presentation, leaving room for the plaintiffs’ claims that the terms were genuinely unclear at the point of sale.

The court determined that factual disputes existed about how prominently DraftKings displayed deposit requirements versus wagering requirements. Some customers apparently completed their wagering obligations but fell short on deposit amounts, then discovered they couldn’t claim the bonus. Whether this outcome resulted from unclear terms or user error became the central question—one the court decided belongs in front of a jury, not a judge’s chambers.

This ruling represents a significant procedural victory for the plaintiffs. Dismissal motions in class actions often succeed, particularly when companies argue that promotional terms are plainly stated. The fact that the court rejected DraftKings’ motion suggests the judge found the company’s defense unconvincing or incomplete.

Why It Matters For Players

If you’ve ever signed up for a sportsbook bonus and hit a snag with the fine print, this case speaks directly to your experience. Deposit bonuses are the primary hook that brings new customers to platforms like DraftKings. The promise of free money is compelling. The reality is often messier.

Players frequently encounter layered requirements: deposit a certain amount, wager it a certain number of times, meet odds minimums, and navigate sport-specific restrictions. When these conditions aren’t crystal clear upfront, customers can complete most of the work only to discover they’ve missed a technical requirement and forfeited the bonus entirely.

This lawsuit suggests that DraftKings may have crossed a line in how it presented these terms. The court’s refusal to dismiss based on recreated evidence implies the original promotional presentation might have genuinely buried or downplayed the deposit requirement relative to the wagering requirement. If the jury agrees, it could establish that sportsbooks must present bonus conditions with greater transparency and prominence.

The practical impact: expect bonus language to become clearer industry-wide. Companies facing similar litigation will likely revise how they display terms, moving deposit requirements higher in the promotional hierarchy and using clearer visual separation between different conditions.

Market Context And Trend Analysis

The sports betting industry has faced increasing regulatory scrutiny since legalization accelerated across U.S. states. Massachusetts itself legalized online sports betting in 2022, creating a competitive market where DraftKings, FanDuel, and others vie aggressively for market share. Deposit bonuses remain the primary customer acquisition tool in this battle.

Litigation over promotional terms isn’t new. The online gambling space has seen multiple class actions targeting unclear bonus conditions, particularly in poker and casino verticals. However, sports betting litigation is still relatively nascent, making this DraftKings case a potential bellwether for how courts will interpret promotional language in the sector.

The Public Health Advocacy Institute’s involvement adds another layer. PHAI typically focuses on public health and consumer protection issues, suggesting this lawsuit may have broader implications beyond individual compensation. The organization’s participation could signal growing institutional attention to how gambling companies market to consumers, particularly around clarity and potential manipulation.

Financially, DraftKings reported $1.1 billion in revenue in 2023 and has aggressively expanded its customer base through promotional spending. Litigation costs and potential settlements represent a meaningful risk factor for the company’s profitability, though not an existential threat at current scales. However, if multiple similar lawsuits succeed across different states, the cumulative impact on bonus-driven acquisition strategies could be substantial.

The online casino and gaming Angle

For the gaming and sports betting community, this ruling signals that courts are willing to scrutinize promotional practices with a skeptical eye. The decision that recreated evidence doesn’t suffice to prove original presentation is particularly significant. It means sportsbooks and casinos can’t simply show what their promotions look like today and claim that’s what customers saw months or years ago.

This has immediate implications for anyone running or evaluating sportsbooks and online casinos. If you’re designing a bonus promotion, the court’s reasoning suggests you need contemporaneous documentation of exactly how terms were presented—screenshots, timestamps, user interface records. Vague or recreated evidence won’t hold up in court.

The case also highlights the tension between aggressive marketing and legal compliance. Deposit bonuses are incredibly effective at driving signups. But if the terms are structured in a way that makes them difficult to complete or understand, you’re creating litigation risk. The Massachusetts court has essentially said: if there’s genuine ambiguity about what customers needed to do, a jury gets to decide if you misled them.

For players and industry observers, this ruling reinforces a simple principle: read the terms, screenshot them, and keep records. If you believe a bonus was wrongfully denied, you now have a precedent showing courts will take promotional clarity seriously.

Key Takeaways

• The Massachusetts court rejected DraftKings’ dismissal motion, allowing the class action to proceed to jury trial on allegations of unclear deposit bonus terms.
• The court found that recreated screenshots don’t constitute sufficient evidence of how promotions were originally presented to customers.
• Factual disputes about whether deposit requirements were adequately disclosed relative to wagering requirements now require jury resolution.
• The Public Health Advocacy Institute’s representation suggests broader institutional scrutiny of gambling industry promotional practices.
• Sportsbooks and casinos will likely face increased pressure to document and clarify bonus terms, with contemporaneous evidence becoming critical in litigation defense.
• This case may establish precedent for how courts interpret promotional ambiguity in sports betting, influencing industry-wide marketing practices.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly was DraftKings accused of doing wrong?

DraftKings allegedly presented a $1,000 deposit bonus with unclear terms that caused customers to meet wagering requirements but not deposit requirements, then denied them the bonus. The lawsuit claims the deposit requirement wasn’t prominently or clearly displayed relative to the wagering requirement.

Why did the court reject DraftKings’ attempt to dismiss the case?

DraftKings submitted recreated images of the promotion as evidence that terms were clear. The court found this insufficient because recreations don’t prove what customers actually saw when they initially encountered the offer. The judge determined genuine factual disputes existed about the original presentation.

What happens next in the lawsuit?

The case will proceed to jury trial, where the jury will decide whether DraftKings’ bonus terms were deceptively presented. If plaintiffs win, the case could result in damages and potentially force DraftKings to change how it displays bonus conditions.

The Bottom Line

This Massachusetts ruling represents a meaningful check on how aggressively sportsbooks can market deposit bonuses. By rejecting recreated evidence and insisting that genuine factual disputes exist about promotional clarity, the court has signaled that it won’t rubber-stamp dismissals in bonus litigation. Juries, not judges, will decide these cases—and juries tend to sympathize with consumers who feel misled.

For DraftKings, the path forward is expensive and uncertain. Settlement negotiations will likely intensify, and the company will face pressure to overhaul how it presents bonus terms across all markets. For the broader industry, the message is clear: promotional language matters, and contemporaneous documentation of how offers are presented is now legally essential.

Players should view this as a win for transparency. When courts take bonus clarity seriously, companies have stronger incentives to make their terms genuinely understandable rather than technically compliant but practically confusing.