Breyer noted for the dismissal motion, he would assume the challenged games were unlawful in California, a claim that DraftKings denies.<\/p>\n
Attorney Richard Patch of Coblentz Patch, representing DraftKings, argued the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn\u2019t suffer economic injury. Patch said arguments that the users would not have played the game if not for DraftKings\u2019 supposed misrepresentation about the legality of the games were not material to the case because they got the game they paid for.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey got a game that they wanted to participate in, and it went by the exact rules that were represented; it did work, they either lost or they won and they took the money,\u201d Patch said. \u201cThey did that for 10 years in this state, and now they say, \u2018We suffered economic injury because when we were doing it we thought it was legal and now we may not think it is legal.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Breyer questioned Patch on why DraftKings heavily advertises the legality of its games in California if representations about its legal status were immaterial to consumers\u2019 decision to play the games.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fact is your client spent a lot of money telling people in California that it\u2019s legal, when in fact the attorney general has said the opposite \u2026 It\u2019s hard to believe it\u2019s not material; if it\u2019s not material, why advertise it?\u201d he asked, adding: \u201cSome people do care about not engaging in conduct that is illegal.”<\/p>\n
In July 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued an opinion<\/a> saying that state law \u201cprohibits the operation of daily fantasy sports games with players physically located within California, regardless of where the operators and associated technology are located.\u201d However, attorney general opinions are only advisory and not legally binding.<\/p>\n Wesley Griffith of Almeida Law Group, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted other service providers in the state such as Amazon don\u2019t have to repeatedly make statements about the legality of their platform.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t spend a bunch of time on your website assuring consumers what you\u2019re offering is legal unless you believe that is a sticking point that you\u2019re going to lose transactions for,\u201d he said. \u201cReasonable consumers understand gaming is highly regulated and the representations here were clearly material to the transaction.\u201d<\/p>\n In their complaint<\/a>, lead plaintiffs Zhicheng Zhen and Jonathan Smith argue DraftKings violated the state\u2019s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedy Act. In their amended complaint<\/a>, they tacked on additional violations of state law, RICO claims and requested declaratory relief.<\/p>\n While Breyer seemed unconvinced by the plaintiffs\u2019 RICO and stolen property claims, he indicated the plaintiffs\u2019 claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law would likely move forward and may allow injunctive relief.<\/p>\n He added if he concludes the plaintiffs have standing and their claims avoid dismissal, the next step would be to consider a preliminary injunction blocking the games in the state of California.<\/p>\n \u201cIf there is standing, and the game falls within the statute, I don\u2019t understand what the argument is about a general injunction that says you can\u2019t do it here,\u201d Breyer said. However, he noted the issue was \u201cnot for today.\u201d<\/p>\n Breyer said he was likely to rule on the motion to dismiss within a week.<\/p>\n Representatives for either party did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n