Published
July 6, 2026
Updated
October 4, 2026
A closely watched attempt to hold DraftKings responsible for fueling gambling addiction hit a wall in 2026 — a judge dismissed it. The plaintiffs are appealing, and a separate public-health lawsuit is pressing on. Here is where things stand.
Allegations Only · Claims Dismissed & On Appeal
This article describes litigation. The allegations against DraftKings are unproven, and the main gambling-addiction class action was dismissed on legal grounds and is now on appeal. Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing, and there is nothing to claim. This page is informational and is not legal or medical advice.
What Is This About?
One of the highest-profile attempts to hold a sports-betting company legally responsible for gambling addiction was aimed at DraftKings — and in 2026 it was dismissed. The proposed class action, Macek v. DraftKings, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-01995, was filed in April 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. It alleged that DraftKings deliberately used VIP hosts, bonuses, and aggressive marketing to keep users betting, even after some said they wanted to stop.The judge dismissed the case, which the docket shows closed on March 23, 2026, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 26-1903). As of October 2026 the appeal is in briefing, and DraftKings now also faces a new batch of individual addiction lawsuits; see OCA’s October 2026 update. Meanwhile, a separate public-health lawsuit has taken aim at the broader sports-betting industry. This page explains where the DraftKings litigation stands. The allegations are unproven, and the dismissal was a legal ruling, not a factual finding for either side.
Status
Class Action Dismissed · On Appeal
Macek v. DraftKings · E.D. Pa. dismissed it March 23, 2026 · Third Circuit No. 26-1903 · opening brief filed July 7, 2026
Allegation (Unproven)
VIP hosts & marketing allegedly fueled gambling addiction
Court ruled DraftKings had no legal duty of care and the conduct was not "extreme and outrageous"
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim
No settlement, no fund, no claim form
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The complaint told a now-familiar story about high-volume sports bettors. It alleged that DraftKings (and, in related litigation, other sportsbooks) assigned "VIP" managers to certain users and offered incentives — bonuses, credits, tickets to sporting events, "risk-free" bet promotions — designed to keep them wagering more often and in larger amounts. According to the complaint, that personalized contact and enticement allegedly continued even after at least one plaintiff indicated he no longer wanted to bet on the platform.The plaintiffs argued these practices amounted to targeting and exploiting people with gambling problems. Their amended complaint, filed in July 2025 on behalf of six named plaintiffs, was pleaded as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It proposed three classes, each with a Pennsylvania subclass: people DraftKings allegedly knew or should have known were gambling compulsively and still targeted with VIP hosts and inducements; people who asked DraftKings to suspend or close their accounts and were still allowed to gamble; and people exposed to the app’s allegedly dangerous design features who developed or could not control compulsive gambling. The claims included negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and strict-liability and negligence product-defect and failure-to-warn claims. Those allegations were never proven; the case was resolved on the law before any trial of the facts.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Why the Court Dismissed It
The dismissal turned on two legal points. First, the court held that DraftKings did not owe the plaintiffs a legal duty of care to protect them from spending too much money or from developing or worsening a gambling addiction. In negligence law, without a recognized duty, there is generally no claim — no matter how sympathetic the circumstances. Second, the court found that encouraging people to gamble, even people who are compulsive gamblers, does not meet the high bar for "extreme and outrageous conduct" required for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.In short, the court concluded that even accepting the allegations, they did not fit the legal theories the plaintiffs used. That is exactly the kind of ruling an appeals court can review — which is why the plaintiffs have taken the case to the Third Circuit.
Where the Appeal Stands
The appeal, Macek v. DraftKings Inc., No. 26-1903, was docketed in the Third Circuit on April 21, 2026. After an extension, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief on July 7, 2026, together with a motion asking the Third Circuit to certify the state-law duty-of-care question to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, so that Pennsylvania’s highest court would decide whether a sportsbook owes that duty. The Third Circuit referred the certification motion to the panel that will decide the appeal, and gave DraftKings until August 27, 2026 to file its brief and its response to the motion. The public docket available to OCA does not yet show those later filings or any argument date.New Individual Lawsuits
While the class action is on appeal, DraftKings is facing individual gambling-addiction suits. Four were filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and removed by DraftKings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 16, 2026: Rivera v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-07179), Santos v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-07176), Woodson v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-07181) and Evans v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 2:26-cv-07168). They are personal-injury product liability cases brought by individual bettors, not class actions. DraftKings’ removal notice in Evans, for example, says the plaintiff alleges he wagered more than $2.1 million on the apps, lost about $81,000 and developed a gambling addiction, and brings product liability and consumer deception claims. In Illinois, a similar individual case, Miller v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 1:26-cv-10394, N.D. Ill.), was removed from Cook County in August 2026, and DraftKings moved to dismiss it on October 2, 2026. These are allegations, and DraftKings has not been found liable. OCA’s October 2026 update covers them in more detail.The Separate Public-Health Lawsuit
The DraftKings addiction suit is not the only front. The Public Health Advocacy Institute filed a separate lawsuit targeting DraftKings, FanDuel, Genius Sports, and the National Football League over sports-gambling practices. That case advances its own theories about how sports betting is marketed and delivered, and — like the addiction class action — its allegations are unproven and untested in court. Related individual claims and mass-tort intake continue in various states as well.Together, these cases reflect a broader legal question that courts are only beginning to work through: what responsibilities, if any, sportsbooks owe to the users most at risk of harm.
Is There Anything to Claim?
No. There is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form.Because the class action was dismissed and is on appeal, there is nothing for a consumer to file, and no payout has been ordered. Be cautious of any website that promises a guaranteed "DraftKings settlement" payout in exchange for a fee or your personal or banking information — there is no such program. Free, confidential help for problem gambling is available through the National Problem Gambling Helpline, run by the National Council on Problem Gambling.
What Happens Next?
The Third Circuit will decide the appeal and whether to send the duty question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court first. If the appeals court agrees with the trial judge, the class action ends; if it disagrees, the case could be revived and sent back for further proceedings. Separately, the public-health lawsuit and any state-level cases will proceed on their own timelines. DraftKings also faces a newer case on an unrelated theory: a July 2026 class action alleging its Predictions app is an unlicensed sportsbook in states where the company has no betting license. OpenClassActions.com will continue watching the dockets for the appellate ruling and other major developments.Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a DraftKings settlement or claim?
No. There is no settlement and no claim form. The gambling-addiction class action was dismissed in 2026 and is on appeal. Be wary of sites promising a DraftKings payout.Why was it dismissed?
A federal judge ruled DraftKings had no legal duty of care to protect users from overspending or addiction, and that encouraging gambling is not "extreme and outrageous conduct." The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit.Are there other sports-betting lawsuits?
Yes. The Public Health Advocacy Institute sued DraftKings, FanDuel, Genius Sports, and the NFL, and other cases continue in various states. Those allegations are also unproven.Sources
• First amended class action complaint, Macek v. DraftKings, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-01995 (E.D. Pa., filed July 15, 2025)• Third Circuit appeal docket, No. 26-1903, on CourtListener
• Notice of removal, Evans v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:26-cv-07168 (E.D. Pa., September 16, 2026)
• ESPN — "Lawsuit accuses sportsbooks of using addictive technology": ESPN
• Legal Newsline — "DraftKings has no duty to protect addicts, court rules": Legal Newsline
• PR Newswire — Public Health Advocacy Institute files sports-gambling lawsuit against DraftKings, FanDuel, Genius Sports and the NFL: PR Newswire
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Dismissed — On Appeal to the Third Circuit
Case Title
Macek v. DraftKings, Inc.
Case Number
5:25-cv-01995 (E.D. Pa.) · Appeal No. 26-1903 (3d Cir.)
Defendant
DraftKings Inc.
Trial Court
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Appeal
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (docketed Apr 21, 2026; opening brief filed Jul 7, 2026)
Related Suit
PHAI v. DraftKings, FanDuel, Genius Sports & the NFL
