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 BioFanDuel is facing a new class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, accusing the operator of running illegal daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests in the state and misleading consumers about their legality.
The 46-page Criswell v. FanDuel complaint was filed on 5 December and seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff: FanDuel Has Operated ‘Unlawful Gambling’ in California
The lawsuit opens with the allegation that:
“FanDuel… has been operating mobile gambling applications and websites within California… representing to customers and the public that its daily fantasy sports contests… are legal forms of gambling in California. They are not.”
The filing argues that FanDuel Fantasy contests constitute illegal wagering under multiple provisions of the California Penal Code. Those include sections 319, 330, 330a, and 337a relating to lotteries, percentage games, and bookmaking.
The complaint also highlights FanDuel’s handling of entry fees, alleging:
“FanDuel receives, pools, documents… and holds all participant bets and wagers… and takes a portion of each pool… as a ‘rake.'”
The plaintiff argues that FanDuel contests are determined entirely by real-world athletic performance, which makes them “contingent and unknown at the time the bets and wagers are made.” That places them within the statutory definition of prohibited wagering.
Plaintiff Argues FanDuel Misled Customers
Another claim is that FanDuel presented DFS to California users as a lawful activity. That includes through its state-availability map.
The complaint states that FanDuel’s messaging “led users to understand and expect that FanDuel… is monitoring location information in order to ensure legal compliance” even though its contests allegedly violated state law.
Plaintiff Gilbert Criswell alleges that he relied on FanDuel’s statements: “If FanDuel had honestly and accurately disclosed the unlawful nature of its gambling operations in California, Plaintiff would not have created an account… or placed bets.”
AG’s Opinion Plays a Central Role
The lawsuit relies heavily on California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s July legal opinion. It quotes the opinion’s conclusion:
“California law prohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games… Such games constitute wagering on sports in violation of Penal Code section 337a.”
Although it does not alter the law, the AG’s opinion has significantly reshaped the DFS landscape. It has triggered product changes, operator pushback, and a wave of litigation.
Part of Broader 2025 DFS Litigation Wave
Since Bonta’s opinion, California has become a hub for DFS-related class action lawsuits. The Almeida Law Group, the attorneys for the latest complaint, are actively involved.
July 2025
- Head v. Underdog Sports – Challenges Underdog’s DFS contests as illegal gambling.
- Four Almeida Law Group class actions – Filed against FanDuel, DraftKings, PrizePicks, and Underdog, alleging their DFS contests are prohibited sports wagering.
- Beltran v. FanDuel – Similar allegations; voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in September.
August 2025
- Koning v. Underdog Sports – Claims Underdog hid the “true nature” of its games, which were allegedly “illegal sports bets.”
- Huynh v. Boom Fantasy – Alleges misrepresentation of contest legality and seeks restitution for losses.
October 2025
- Holyk v. Blitz Studios, Inc. (Sleeper Fantasy) – Accusing Sleeper Fantasy of “platforming illegal gambling” in violation of state law.
Defining Moment for DFS in the State
Operators continue to argue that DFS is a game of skill and that the AG’s opinion does not alter state law. Major players like PrizePicks and Underdog have switched to peer-to-peer formats in an attempt to circumvent California’s law, which classifies playing against the house as illegal gambling.
However, with a growing number of lawsuits targeting nearly every major platform, attorneys general who have threatened legal actions, and Native American tribes that are highly protective of their gaming exclusivity, the unregulated format is facing an uncertain future in the state.
