FanDuel and DraftKings File 217 Pages of Dismissal Motions in Philadelphia Microbetting Addiction Lawsuit Citing Free Apps and Gaming Control Board Preemption
Key Takeaways
- $23 million in wagers, nearly $1.9 million and more than $170,000 in losses: Terry Thompson placed roughly $23 million in NFL microbets across the platforms and lost nearly $1.9 million. Christopher Sage lost more than $170,000.
- 111-page and 106-page filings: FanDuel and DraftKings argue their free mobile apps do not qualify as products under Pennsylvania product liability law and fall outside the two-year statute of limitations.
- Gaming Control Board preemption asserted: Operators state Pennsylvania lawmakers assigned exclusive oversight of sports betting safeguards to the regulatory body, blocking private civil suits for damages.
- Post-PASPA test for microbetting: The suit accuses the platforms of weaponizing mobile technology and artificial intelligence to drive addictive live betting, eight years after the Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act.
Roughly $23 million in wagers. Nearly $1.9 million in losses for one plaintiff. More than $170,000 lost by the second. Those figures anchor a lawsuit filed in March by Christopher Sage and Terry Thompson against FanDuel, DraftKings, the NFL and Genius Sports.
The case targets microbetting. It claims high-speed, AI-driven in-game wagers have the ability to hijack gamblers’ brains and keep them immersed in ceaseless betting action. DraftKings and FanDuel responded last week with 111-page and 106-page filings seeking full dismissal. The documents reject product liability, invoke regulatory preemption and cite the two-year statute of limitations.
According to reporting by Gambling Insider, all four defendants filed motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs attorney called the responses an exercise in deflection.
Free Apps Declared Outside Product Liability Scope
Attorneys for the Flutter-owned FanDuel wrote in their 111-page objection that the company provides a free online application. FanDuel is not a seller, and its application is not a product subject to product liability claims under Pennsylvania law.
DraftKings counsel made a parallel argument in its 106-page filing. Both operators reject the idea that mobile apps qualify as defective products capable of causing addiction under consumer protection statutes.
The distinction matters. Pennsylvania law treats tangible goods and certain services differently. Operators insist a downloadable app given at no cost falls outside those categories.
This position directly challenges the plaintiffs novel theory. Sage and Thompson argue the apps constitute a product whose design features created foreseeable harm.
Microbetting Features Accused of Weaponizing Speed and AI
The lawsuit centers on live betting on discrete in-game events. Plaintiffs attorneys state DraftKings and FanDuel implemented product features designed to drive customers toward microbetting due to its known ability to keep gamblers immersed in ceaseless betting action.
Thompson wagered almost exclusively on NFL microbets. The complaint describes how the shift from Nevada cash wagers at physical sportsbooks to instant phone taps removed friction that once limited exposure.
For nearly 90 years anyone who wanted to put money down on a game needed to go to a sportsbook somewhere in Nevada. The amended complaint contrasts that time-consuming cash process with todays one-tap experience.
FanDuel pushed back on any implication that pre-2018 sports betting was safer. “It was an explicit effort to regulate a previously unregulated regime – which included not only out-of-state casinos but also illicit bookies, organized crime and offshore casinos – with something the Commonwealth deems to be both safer for the players and better for the taxpayers,” FanDuel stated.
Regulatory Preemption and Arbitration Defenses Raised
Both sportsbooks argue Pennsylvania lawmakers gave the state Gaming Control Board sole authority over all aspects of sports betting regulation. “Plaintiffs are free to disagree with and even challenge the General Assembly’s policy choices, but not by way of a private civil suit for damages,” FanDuel’s response stated, adding the court should not be asked to use the consumer protection law to “undercut careful legislative and regulatory determinations.”
The filings warn that allowing the consumer protection law to override those determinations would undercut careful legislative and regulatory frameworks.
FanDuel went further. It filed a separate motion to compel arbitration based on account terms and conditions accepted by both plaintiffs. The document notes Thompson last clicked to approve the updated terms on Dec. 16, 2025, just 14 weeks before filing the initial complaint. Sage and Thompson allegedly agreed to the arbitration clause 15 separate times.
DraftKings added that the Complaint establishes that Plaintiffs knew of their alleged injuries and their alleged cause years before filing suit in March 2026.
NFL and Genius Sports Reject Any Direct Link to Harm
The NFL told the court it acts only as an indirect licensor of raw data and statistics. It has no connection to the plaintiffs and faces a 13-count tort action that would violate its due process rights under the 14th Amendment.
Genius Sports, the London-based provider of real-time NFL statistics, stated proximate causation is independently lacking because the causal chain between its supply of sports data and the plaintiffs gambling losses is too remote and attenuated. It listed multiple independent actors including the operators app design choices and the plaintiffs own repeated voluntary decisions to wager.
Sage and Thompson had included five VIP hosts in the suit. Only one, Shaun Gordon of DraftKings, remains a current employee. The others no longer work for the sportsbooks.
Andrew Rainer, litigation director for the Public Health Advocacy Institute, responded for the plaintiffs. He said the papers filed by DraftKings, FanDuel, Genius Sports and the NFL point the finger for the harm done to Terry Thompson and Chris Sage at everyone but themselves, which is where our complaint appropriately assigns the responsibility.
Plaintiffs have until Aug. 5 to reply.
Where the Risk Lies for Operators and Regulators
The core risk sits in whether Pennsylvania courts accept the Gaming Control Board preemption argument. If judges rule that exclusive regulatory authority blocks private addiction lawsuits, operators gain clear protection against this liability theory.
Yet the suit also tests something larger. Eight years after the Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, courts must decide how far product liability can reach into app design choices and AI recommendation engines. Microbetting volume grew because it delivers fast resolution and constant engagement. Those same traits now face claims of engineered addiction.
A loss for the operators could invite parallel suits in other states. Plaintiffs counsel has already signaled this filing is part of a broader effort to treat sophisticated mobile platforms as accountable products rather than regulated services.
From an operations perspective the volume of microbetting and the precision of its targeting create exactly the data trails that make these claims possible. The filings show both sides recognize the stakes.
How Pennsylvania Courts May View Gaming Control Board Preemption
The coming rulings will signal how strictly state courts defer to dedicated gaming regulators on addiction safeguards. Pennsylvania built its sports betting framework around the Gaming Control Board precisely to avoid fragmented private litigation.
If the court dismisses on preemption grounds it reinforces that legislative choice. Operators would then face addiction-related claims primarily through regulatory channels rather than civil damage suits. That outcome would limit exposure while still requiring continued investment in responsible gaming tools.
The case also pressures platforms on feature design. Microbetting and AI-driven prompts delivered measurable growth. They also delivered the fact pattern now under scrutiny. Courts that side with the operators on product status would draw a boundary around what counts as an actionable defect in a free consumer application.
Either path sets precedent. The Aug. 5 reply deadline and subsequent hearings will show whether post-PASPA liability stops at the regulatory perimeter or crosses into app-level product claims. Operators should track the language on proximate cause and voluntary user decisions. Those phrases appear in every dismissal filing for a reason.
