Share 
State of Play’s TL;DR
- A federal court has dismissed RICO claims against DraftKings.
- Two gamblers were looking to recover their losses.
A federal court in Northern California has dismissed RICO claims brought against DraftKings by gamblers seeking to recover their losses. The ruling said public policy against recovering gambling losses bars those claims to the extent they seek repayment of those losses in any form.
The decision came from the federal district court in San Francisco, according to a report from VitalLaw. While the source does not identify the judge, case caption, or whether plaintiffs were given leave to amend, it does make the central takeaway clear: Using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to claw back gambling losses hit a major barrier in this case.
Gamblers sought to recover losses
The plaintiffs were gamblers who sued DraftKings under RICO, a federal law often used in cases involving alleged patterns of unlawful conduct.
But the court dismissed those claims, with the source summarizing the ruling this way: “The public policy against gambling loss recovery bars the claims to the extent they seek recovery of their losses in any form.”
That matters because the claims were aimed at recovering money the plaintiffs had already lost while using the platform. Based on the available report, the court treated that requested remedy as incompatible with longstanding policy against allowing gamblers to recover losses through later litigation.
For DraftKings, the ruling narrows at least one path plaintiffs tried to use in gambling-related litigation. For bettors and industry watchers, it is another reminder that not every lawsuit tied to online wagering will survive simply because it is framed under a broad federal statute.
The decision also underscores how gambling cases can turn on remedy as much as underlying allegations. Here, the key issue highlighted by the source was not just that RICO claims were filed, but that the plaintiffs were trying to recover gambling losses themselves.
Based on reporting by Brian Craig, J.D, for VitalLaw.
