Chavdar Vasilev is a journalist covering the casino and sports betting market sectors for CasinoBeats. He joined CasinoBeats in May 2025 and reports on industry-shaping stories across the US and beyond, including legislative debates, market...
Read Full BioFederal judges in Illinois and New Jersey have allowed legal challenges over DraftKings’ “Risk-Free” betting promotions to move forward. The rulings, issued just a week apart, intensify legal scrutiny over sportsbooks’ marketing and mark judicial recognition that “risk-free” language may mislead reasonable consumers.
Illinois: DraftKings’ ‘Risk-Free’ Ads Could Mislead Users
In Illinois, on November 25, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged deception. He pointed to ads that promised “ALL WIN NO RISK” and “New customers bet risk free up to $100,” with “neither… accompanied by fine print.”
The court summarized the structure of DraftKings’ promotions: The operator advertised bets “as carrying no risk when in fact they did carry a risk.”
According to the ruling, a losing bettor receives only a “bonus bet,” which “is not redeemable for cash.” Even if that bonus wins, the player “is not returned the ‘stake.’”
As the court noted, a statement can be deceptive if it “is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer, even if the statement is literally true.”
The Illinois case also includes broader allegations about DraftKings’ app design.
New Jersey: ‘Risk-Free’ to Proceed, ‘No Sweat’ Dismissed
In New Jersey, on November 19, U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler reached a similar conclusion on “risk-free” wording. But, he drew a sharp distinction between the phrase and DraftKings’ replacement branding of “No Sweat.”
According to the opinion: “‘No Sweat’ and ‘Risk-Free’ have markedly different connotations, with the latter much more obviously assuring users that any potential bet would be without risk.”
Because plaintiffs alleged they relied only on “Risk-Free” ads, those claims survived. The court emphasized that “concealing the terms of a promotion under a bold heading and having fine print terms… may constitute illegal and deceptive conduct.”
On loss, the judge held that plaintiffs “sufficiently plead ascertainable loss because they received ‘less than what [they were] promised’.”
The ruling creates a clear through-line between Illinois and New Jersey: two different federal courts now agree that “Risk-Free” promotion language can plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer.
Other Pending Litigation: Pennsylvania & Baltimore
The Illinois and New Jersey rulings could also provide context for parallel lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Baltimore.
In Pennsylvania, a class-action filed in April alleges that DraftKings’ “risk-free” and deposit-match promotions misled bettors and contributed to significant financial losses. Plaintiffs also claim the platform failed to honor self-exclusion requests.
In Baltimore, the city has sued both DraftKings and FanDuel, alleging the companies deployed “algorithms designed to create problem gamblers” and induce users “already exhibiting signs of problem gambling to increase their use.”
On November 10, a federal judge moved the case to state courts. The judge emphasized that Maryland courts, not federal courts, should decide the case on its merits. The ruling did not address whether DraftKings or FanDuel violated the law.
Regulatory Action: DraftKings Settled in Connecticut
Pressure on DraftKings’ marketing practices expands beyond private lawsuits. In July 2025, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection reached a settlement with the company. It required DraftKings to refund more than $3 million to approximately 7,000 players who had participated in promotional offers with unclear terms and conditions.
The payout comes after the regulator investigated DraftKings for allegedly engaging in misleading marketing practices. This included offering deposit match bonuses without fully disclosing the associated terms and conditions.
Different Outcome on ‘Free Bet’ Allegations for Caesars
The latest rulings against DraftKings contrast with a recent Illinois decision involving Caesars. U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin ruled that the matter is not for the courts to decide. Instead, it must be settled by arbitration because the plaintiffs agreed to Caesars’ terms and conditions when they signed up.
The ruling suggests that courts may treat disclosures, offer structures, and precise promotional language differently depending on execution.
The two recent DraftKings decisions show a judicial willingness to scrutinize “risk-free” promises closely. Meanwhile, Caesars benefited from a narrower reading of its promotional terms.
