New York challenge to daily fantasy sports
News on 8 Sep 2017
News on 8 Sep 2017
New York’s 2016 legislation legalising daily fantasy sports as a game of skill, and the legal challenge against it mounted last year by the Stop Predatory Gambling action group, was in the headlines again this week when the presiding judge rejected a motion by the state that the case be dismissed.
Ironically, the man who did his utmost to shut DFS in New York down at one point, state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, found himself defending the vertical as a state servant now that it is on the law books and legal.
Stop Predatory Gambling’s case is based on the argument that the DFS legalising measure is unconstitutional, and questions whether the state legislature has the power or authority to determine that DFS is a skill game that falls outside the state’s definition of gambling.
Judge Gerald Connolly rejected AG Schneiderman’s motion to dismiss the case, ruling:
“While defendants argue that the legislation is presumed to be constitutional, such presumption alone does not itself bar plaintiffs’ action herein and while plaintiffs ultimately bear the burden of proof in this action, the Court’s analysis upon the instant motion is limited.
“Plaintiffs complaint challenges the constitutionality of Chapter 237 of the Laws of 201 6. Accepting the facts alleged as true, plaintiffs have alleged that daily fantasy sports constitutes “gambling” and that such activities violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
“Defendants [the state] assert that the courts have accorded the Legislature substantial latitude in determining what conduct constitutes prohibited gambling, however, such assertion does not mandate dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint at this juncture … such argument is more appropriate on a motion for summary judgment and not the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.”
Earlier this year, Schneiderman’s office filed a brief defending the DFS legalisation law, claiming that the New York legislature has the power to define what is and what is not gambling without altering the state constitution.
The case is proceeding.
