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 contained deliberately obscured terms. The decision opens the door to a jury trial over whether the company misled customers about bonus eligibility requirements.

What Happened

DraftKings faced a significant legal setback when a Massachusetts court declined to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Sean Harris, represented by the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI). The case centers on DraftKings’ $1,000 deposit bonus promotion, which allegedly contained confusing or hidden terms that left customers unable to claim their bonuses despite meeting certain wagering requirements.

The core allegation is straightforward: customers who satisfied the promotion’s wagering requirements found themselves ineligible for the bonus because they hadn’t met separate deposit requirements—terms the plaintiffs claim were not clearly communicated upfront. This disconnect between what players believed they’d accomplished and what the sportsbook required created a category of customers who completed the hard work but couldn’t access the reward.

DraftKings attempted to get the case thrown out by presenting visual evidence of the promotion’s terms. The company argued that the bonus conditions were plainly visible to anyone who looked at the promotional materials. But the court wasn’t convinced. Judges noted that DraftKings’ evidence consisted of recreations of the original promotion—not necessarily what initial players actually saw when they signed up. That distinction mattered.

The court found sufficient factual disputes between what DraftKings claimed about the promotion’s clarity and what the plaintiffs experienced. Those disputes are exactly the kind of questions juries exist to resolve. By denying the motion to dismiss, the court essentially said: this case has merit, and a jury should hear it.

Why It Matters For Players

For anyone who’s ever signed up for a sportsbook bonus, this ruling hits close to home. Deposit bonuses are one of the primary reasons new customers choose one platform over another. You see the big number—$1,000, $2,500, whatever—and it looks like free money. But the fine print is where reality lives, and that’s where disputes like this one originate.

The lawsuit suggests that DraftKings may have structured its bonus terms in a way that made them easy to misunderstand. Specifically, the separation between wagering requirements and deposit requirements created a trap: complete one, miss the other, lose the bonus. If a jury agrees that this structure was intentionally confusing, it could force DraftKings and other sportsbooks to redesign how they present bonus eligibility.

This matters because bonus disputes are personal. A player who thinks they’ve earned a $1,000 bonus and then gets denied feels cheated. They’ve invested time and money based on what they believed was a legitimate offer. When the sportsbook later says “you didn’t read the fine print,” it feels like a bait-and-switch, whether or not it technically is one.

The ruling also signals that courts won’t automatically defer to a company’s own evidence about what was “clearly” presented. If DraftKings can only show recreations of promotional materials rather than the original versions, that gap becomes evidence itself—evidence that something may have changed or that the original presentation might have been different from what the company now claims.

Market Context And Trend Analysis

This lawsuit arrives at a critical moment in American sports betting’s evolution. Since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA in 2018, state-by-state legalization has created a fragmented regulatory landscape. Massachusetts itself only launched legal sports betting in 2023, making it one of the newer markets. DraftKings, as the market leader, faces heightened scrutiny precisely because of its size and visibility.

The bonus litigation trend has been building. Over the past three years, multiple sportsbooks have faced similar complaints about unclear promotion terms. FanDuel, BetMGM, and others have all dealt with bonus-related disputes. But Massachusetts courts have shown particular willingness to let these cases proceed to trial rather than granting summary dismissals. That’s a meaningful shift from earlier years when courts were more deferential to sportsbook promotional language.

Data from the American Gaming Association shows that promotional bonuses account for roughly 15-20% of new customer acquisition costs in the sports betting industry. That’s billions of dollars annually. When those promotions become litigation flashpoints, the entire business model gets questioned. Regulators in states like New York and Illinois have started requiring sportsbooks to disclose bonus terms more explicitly, signaling that the old playbook no longer works.

DraftKings’ stock price has remained relatively stable despite various legal challenges, but investor presentations increasingly acknowledge regulatory and litigation risks. This Massachusetts case is one of dozens pending across multiple jurisdictions. Each one that survives a motion to dismiss increases the likelihood of settlements or regulatory intervention.

The online casino and gaming Angle

For the online gaming community, this ruling represents a watershed moment. DraftKings isn’t some marginal operator—it’s the industry standard-bearer. When a court allows a bonus dispute against DraftKings to proceed, it sends a message to every other sportsbook: your promotional terms will be scrutinized, and you can’t hide behind your own recreations of what you claim you showed players.

The decision also validates a specific legal strategy: challenging not just whether terms existed, but whether they were presented clearly enough at the moment of signup. This is different from arguing that terms were unreasonable or unfair. It’s arguing that the presentation itself was deceptive. That’s a higher bar, but it’s one this court found the plaintiffs could potentially meet.

For players navigating the crowded sportsbook landscape, the ruling underscores the importance of screenshotting promotional offers before claiming them. If DraftKings’ own recreations weren’t sufficient evidence, your own documentation becomes crucial. The court’s skepticism about recreated materials suggests that original, timestamped evidence matters enormously.

The involvement of the Public Health Advocacy Institute also signals that consumer protection groups are treating sportsbook promotions as a public health issue, not just a business dispute. PHAI’s track record includes successful litigation against tobacco companies and other industries. Their presence in this case suggests a more aggressive legal posture than typical consumer class actions.

Key Takeaways

• Massachusetts court rejected DraftKings’ motion to dismiss, allowing the class action lawsuit over the $1,000 deposit bonus to proceed to trial.
• The court found DraftKings’ evidence—recreations of promotional materials—insufficient to prove the bonus terms were clearly presented to original players.
• The case hinges on whether wagering requirements and deposit requirements were adequately distinguished in the original promotional materials.
• This ruling increases litigation risk for all sportsbooks and may accelerate regulatory pressure for clearer bonus disclosures.
• Players who claim bonuses should now document promotional terms at signup, as courts are skeptical of company recreations.
• The Public Health Advocacy Institute’s involvement suggests consumer protection litigation against sportsbooks will intensify.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is DraftKings being accused of in this lawsuit?

The plaintiffs claim DraftKings’ $1,000 deposit bonus had confusing or unclear terms that separated wagering requirements from deposit requirements. Players who completed the wagering requirement but not the deposit requirement were allegedly denied the bonus, despite believing they’d met the conditions.

Why did the court reject DraftKings’ evidence about the promotion?

DraftKings presented recreations of the promotional materials rather than the original versions that players saw when they signed up. The court noted this distinction was significant—recreations don’t prove what the original presentation actually looked like, leaving room for factual disputes about clarity.

What happens next in this case?

The case will proceed toward a jury trial unless the parties reach a settlement. Discovery will likely involve examining DraftKings’ original promotional materials, customer complaints, and expert testimony about whether the bonus terms were presented clearly enough to avoid confusion.

The Bottom Line

DraftKings’ failed motion to dismiss is a turning point in how courts treat sportsbook bonus disputes. The company’s attempt to rely on its own recreated evidence backfired, with judges essentially saying that original materials matter more than current reconstructions. That’s a problem for any operator trying to defend promotional claims years after the fact.

This ruling won’t end DraftKings’ business or even necessarily cost the company millions—settlement negotiations often result in modest payouts. But it does establish that sportsbooks can’t simply declare their promotional terms “clear” and expect courts to accept that assertion. The burden of proof has shifted. Companies must now demonstrate clarity through original, contemporaneous evidence.

For the broader sports betting industry, the message is clear: tighten your promotional language, make bonus conditions unmistakably distinct, and preserve original materials. The era of burying bonus terms in dense legal text is ending. Courts are watching, regulators are paying attention, and consumer protection groups are ready to litigate.