FanDuel and DraftKings Fight Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawsuit Over Alleged Addiction Targeting

FanDuel and DraftKings are trying to knock out a Philadelphia lawsuit that says both operators kept a Pennsylvania bettor playing despite clear signs of gambling addiction. For high-risk operators and PSPs, the interesting part is not just the allegations, but the familiar defense playbook: no duty to intervene, the availability of safer-gambling tools, and a push toward arbitration.

1. The case was filed earlier this year by the Public Health Advocacy Institute on behalf of Terry Thompson, a Pennsylvania bettor. The complaint says FanDuel and DraftKings used personalized perks and VIP programs to encourage him to keep gambling even as his behavior spiraled out of control.
2. One detail that drew attention was a personalized video message from Philadelphia Phillies star Bryce Harper, arranged through a third-party platform. Thompson’s side says it was part of an effort to keep him playing. Harper later said he did not know the purpose of the message and would not have participated had he known the context.
3. FanDuel and DraftKings have not directly addressed the Harper allegations, but they argue that promotional offers and VIP programs are standard industry practice and comply with regulatory guidelines. They also point to tools such as deposit limits and self-exclusion, saying those controls are freely available to users.
4. In their recent filings, lawyers for both operators asked the court to dismiss the case. Their core argument is that sportsbooks do not have a legal duty to step in when a customer shows signs of excessive but otherwise lawful gambling, and they say courts have already rejected that theory, including in compulsive-gambling cases.
5. FanDuel separately argues the dispute must go to arbitration because Thompson accepted its Terms and Conditions, which require mandatory arbitration for complaints. If the judge agrees, the case would move out of public court proceedings and into a process that keeps much less daylight on how these disputes are handled.

The judge has not ruled on the motions yet, so the immediate question is whether this becomes a public test case or gets diverted into arbitration. If the case survives, it could become a useful reference point for how far operators are expected to go when user behavior starts to look like a problem rather than just a profitable session.