Massachusetts Court Allows DraftKings Bonus Lawsuit to Proceed

A Massachusetts court has rejected DraftKings’ attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging the company misled customers about its $1,000 deposit bonus promotion. The ruling clears the path for a jury trial on claims that players who met wagering requirements were wrongly denied bonuses when they failed to satisfy separate deposit thresholds.

What Happened

On a recent ruling, the Massachusetts court found sufficient factual disputes in the case brought by plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Sean Harris, represented by the Public Health Advocacy Institute (PHAI), to warrant proceeding to trial. DraftKings had filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that visual evidence of the promotion’s terms was clear and unambiguous.

The sportsbook submitted what it claimed was documentation of the $1,000 deposit bonus promotion to support its dismissal motion. However, the court raised a critical issue: the evidence consisted of recreations of the original promotion, not necessarily what initial players actually saw when they encountered the offer.

This distinction proved decisive. The judge determined that disputes over what the promotion actually communicated to players—and whether the bonus terms were sufficiently transparent—could not be resolved on the pleadings alone. The case now advances toward discovery and eventual jury trial.

The core allegation centers on a specific scenario: customers who completed the wagering requirements attached to the bonus were subsequently denied the full promotional payout because they had not simultaneously met separate deposit requirements. PHAI argues this created a bait-and-switch dynamic that violated consumer protection standards.

Why It Matters For Players

For anyone who has claimed a deposit bonus at DraftKings or similar sportsbooks, this ruling signals that courts are willing to scrutinize promotional fine print. If you’ve ever felt confused about bonus eligibility—particularly when you thought you’d satisfied the stated requirements but were told you hadn’t—this case speaks directly to your experience.

The lawsuit challenges a common industry practice: layering multiple conditions onto a single promotion. A player sees “$1,000 Deposit Bonus” and assumes meeting the associated wagering requirement unlocks the money. The allegation here is that DraftKings imposed an additional, less conspicuous deposit requirement that negated the bonus for players who didn’t meet it.

The court’s decision to allow the case forward means DraftKings cannot simply point to written terms and claim victory. Instead, a jury will evaluate whether those terms were presented clearly enough to reasonable players. That’s a meaningful shift in how bonus disputes get resolved.

If the plaintiffs prevail, DraftKings could face significant liability. Class actions in sports betting have already resulted in substantial settlements—this one could affect how the entire industry structures and markets deposit bonuses going forward.

Market Context And Trend Analysis

The sports betting industry has experienced explosive growth since the 2018 Supreme Court decision striking down the federal sports betting ban. States have rapidly legalized the activity, and competition among operators has intensified dramatically. Deposit bonuses became a primary customer acquisition tool—and a source of friction.

Between 2019 and 2024, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general have received thousands of complaints about misleading sports betting promotions. Massachusetts, in particular, has taken an aggressive stance on consumer protection in gambling. The state’s Gaming Commission has fined operators for unclear promotional terms multiple times.

DraftKings operates in 16+ states and generated $2.1 billion in revenue in 2023. The company has faced multiple regulatory actions and lawsuits over promotional practices. In 2022, DraftKings agreed to pay $4.25 million to settle allegations of deceptive marketing practices with the New York Department of Financial Services.

This Massachusetts case reflects a broader pattern: as sports betting matures, courts and regulators are moving beyond passive acceptance of complex terms and conditions. They’re asking whether promotions are genuinely transparent or merely technically compliant. The distinction matters enormously for operators’ bottom lines.

Industry analysts note that promotional clarity has become a competitive differentiator. Operators offering straightforward bonus structures—even if less generous—have gained market share from competitors with Byzantine terms. This lawsuit may accelerate that trend.

The crypto casino and gambling Angle

For the crypto gambling and casino community, this ruling carries particular weight. Decentralized and crypto-native gambling platforms have built part of their value proposition on transparency and simplified terms. When traditional sportsbooks face litigation over promotional opacity, it strengthens the narrative around blockchain-based alternatives.

Crypto casinos and betting platforms often highlight their smart contract-based promotions as immutable and transparent. A player can literally read the code governing bonus distribution. There’s no ambiguity about what triggers payment because the logic is publicly verifiable on-chain.

This DraftKings case demonstrates the friction point that crypto gambling addresses: traditional operators control the interpretation of their own terms. Courts must intervene to determine what was actually communicated. Crypto platforms eliminate that intermediary layer entirely.

However, the ruling also signals regulatory attention to gambling promotions broadly. Crypto casino operators should note that even decentralized platforms operating in regulated jurisdictions face similar scrutiny. Bonus terms—whether enforced by code or by company policy—must be genuinely clear to users.

The case also underscores why some crypto gambling platforms have chosen to minimize promotional complexity altogether. Instead of stacking conditions, they offer straightforward incentives. It’s a business decision informed by exactly this kind of legal risk.

Key Takeaways

• Court rejects recreation evidence: DraftKings’ submitted screenshots of the promotion were recreations, not the original materials players saw. This distinction allowed the case to survive dismissal.
• Jury trial now likely: The court found genuine factual disputes about what the promotion communicated, meaning a jury will ultimately decide the case—not a judge on the pleadings.
• Bonus structure under fire: The lawsuit challenges a specific practice: denying bonuses to players who met wagering requirements but not deposit requirements, creating a potential bait-and-switch scenario.
• Massachusetts takes hard line: The state has consistently shown willingness to enforce strict promotional transparency standards in gambling, setting a precedent for other jurisdictions.
• Industry precedent emerging: This case joins a growing body of litigation forcing sportsbooks to defend their promotional practices in court, potentially reshaping how bonuses are structured industry-wide.
• Crypto platforms positioned differently: Blockchain-based gambling platforms can leverage immutable, code-enforced bonus terms as a competitive advantage in this regulatory environment.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

DraftKings’ failed dismissal motion represents a pivotal moment in sports betting litigation. The court’s decision to allow the case forward signals that bonus disputes won’t be resolved by corporate assertions of clarity—they’ll be decided by juries evaluating what players actually understood.

For the broader gambling industry, the ruling is a warning. Promotional terms that are technically compliant but practically opaque face legal jeopardy. As competition intensifies and regulatory scrutiny increases, operators that prioritize genuine transparency over maximum complexity are positioning themselves more defensibly.

For crypto gambling platforms, the case reinforces an existing advantage: immutable, code-enforced bonus structures that eliminate interpretive ambiguity. As traditional sportsbooks navigate litigation over promotional practices, blockchain-based alternatives can credibly claim a structural advantage in transparency and fairness.