Share 
A Sacramento Superior Court judge rejected Underdog’s emergency request to stop the release of a legal opinion on daily fantasy sports. The court said Attorney General Rob Bonta’s opinion is advisory. As a result, it does not change the law or ban contests.
Underdog told the court the opinion would hurt its business in California, where it says it earns a large share of revenue. The judge said Underdog had known the opinion was coming for many months. The court also noted that the opinion would not cause any immediate harm. The ruling allows Bonta’s office to move ahead with the opinion.
AG’s opinion: DFS = illegal betting?
Attorney General Rob Bonta was expected to issue a written opinion that classifies daily fantasy sports as illegal sports wagering under California law. The view is that paid fantasy contests allow users to wager on the outcome of real athletic performance. According to this opinion, this falls within the statute that bars betting on the result of a contest.
The opinion does not change the law on its own. However, in the long run, it can guide prosecutors and regulators. Local officials could use it to justify pressure on operators to leave the market or change their products. It would also signal a shift from the long period of gray-area tolerance.
California voters rejected two sports betting measures in 2022, so online wagering remains illegal. Daily fantasy sports continued without a clear statute, leaving a gray zone that operators used for many years.
In October 2023, former Sen. Scott Wilk asked the attorney general to review whether the contests violate state law. On July 3, 2025, several civil lawsuits were filed against major fantasy firms to stop the contests and recover money from players.
During the review, some operators changed their products. PrizePicks shifted to a peer-to-peer format in California and later rolled that model out nationwide. After the attorney general issued the opinion in July 2025, Underdog removed its pick’em product in the state and said it would evaluate next steps.
Underdog fails to block AG opinion
Underdog’s lawsuit requested a temporary restraining order to block the release of the legal opinion. This approach aimed to maintain the current structure of fantasy contests in California while giving the attorney general time to assess the validity of the argument.
The filing argued that a written opinion from the attorney general may only answer a pure legal question submitted by a current public official. The request came from former state Sen. Scott Wilk, who is no longer in office.
Underdog also argued that daily fantasy sports are games of skill rather than gambling. The company cited rulings in New York and Illinois that classified fantasy contests separately from traditional wagering.
The complaint claimed the opinion was influenced by pressure from tribal gaming interests seeking to limit online competitors. Underdog cautioned that such action could result in major revenue losses, financial harm to investors, disruptions in payment processing, and a swift decline in customer activity. Meanwhile, Underdog sports betting operates freely in some other states.
Judge Jennifer Rockwell rejected the request because Underdog did not show that the release of the opinion would create immediate or irreparable harm. The court noted that the company had known for more than a year that the attorney general planned to issue a view on daily fantasy sports.
The judge said the attorney general’s opinion does not change the law or ban fantasy contests in California. It only gives guidance to officials and courts. Any enforcement would need a separate legal action.
Fantasy giants defy California crackdown
Underdog has stated that it will continue operating in California, while DraftKings and FanDuel also plan to keep their contests available to players. The Coalition for Fantasy Sports has asked the state to consider the long record of public use. It notes that an advisory opinion does not change the law.
Tribal leaders support increased oversight. They are also calling for action to halt the operations of platforms they consider to be engaging in unlawful gambling. If the opinion stands, local prosecutors may use it to justify new pressure. Additionally, banks or other payment processors may pull away.
The move may also push lawmakers to draft a direct statute. A similar opinion in Texas in 2016 triggered exits without a statute change. The California opinion could influence how other states address fantasy sports, particularly those that still view them as operating in a gray area. However, the attorney general’s office has declined to comment on any enforcement timetable.
