FanDuel and Draftkings both have been behemoths in the sports world, especially in the past couple of years due to a recent advertising surge. They are both fantasy companies who offer daily online fantasy sports for money. The companies offer leagues which anyone can join for a fee as little as $1 and the person whose lineup has the most points gets to take all the money from everyone else in the league. FanDuel and Draftkings make money by taking a small percentage of the winnings, for example, FanDuel takes ten percent of the winnings. This means that if there are ten people in the league and each person pays one dollar, the winner will win nine dollars, and FanDuel will keep one dollar. This may seem insignificant with small numbers but
…show more content…
In the 2007 court case Humphrey v Viacom, Humphrey claimed that he sustained gambling losses from online sports fantasy leagues. He tried to recover the money that he lost by saying that sports fantasy leagues are essentially gambling. Humphrey claimed that online fantasy was intertwined with gambling because users of the sites made a “bet” or “wager” by paying an entry fee, however the court claimed the opposite that users did not make a “bet” or “wager” with the entry fee, and therefor Humphrey lost the case. In the other court case Langone v Kaiser and FanDuel, Langone claimed that Fanduel was a winner and therefore could take the money Langone lost from Fanduel. The court said that Fanduel wasn’t a winner and was just the owner of a website that operates an online gaming site. Thus Langone could not recover the money he lost from FanDuel and lost the court case. These two cases have been precedents for the slew of cases that have been and will be brought up against daily fantasy. However, recently it seems that the law has been leaning the other way when dealing with daily fantasy. Last year, the gaming control board in Nevada shut down daily fantasy ruling that it is not a game of skill constituting that it is gambling. In 6 states so far, daily fantasy has been made illegal because the individual states have found that chance is more involved than skill. Daily Fantasy has seen a colossal increase in users and profit the past couple of years but may have hit its
In the 2007 court case Humphrey v Viacom, Humphrey claimed that he sustained gambling losses from online sports fantasy leagues. He tried to recover the money that he lost by saying that sports fantasy leagues are essentially gambling. Humphrey claimed that online fantasy was intertwined with gambling because users of the sites made a “bet” or “wager” by paying an entry fee, however the court claimed the opposite that users did not make a “bet” or “wager” with the entry fee, and therefor Humphrey lost the case. In the other court case Langone v Kaiser and FanDuel, Langone claimed that Fanduel was a winner and therefore could take the money Langone lost from Fanduel. The court said that Fanduel wasn’t a winner and was just the owner of a website that operates an online gaming site. Thus Langone could not recover the money he lost from FanDuel and lost the court case. These two cases have been precedents for the slew of cases that have been and will be brought up against daily fantasy. However, recently it seems that the law has been leaning the other way when dealing with daily fantasy. Last year, the gaming control board in Nevada shut down daily fantasy ruling that it is not a game of skill constituting that it is gambling. In 6 states so far, daily fantasy has been made illegal because the individual states have found that chance is more involved than skill. Daily Fantasy has seen a colossal increase in users and profit the past couple of years but may have hit its