Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 1 of 33 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`ANDREW B. MELNICK, individually,
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US, LLC,
`
`d/b/a FANDUEL SPORTSBOOK,
`
`an Illinois limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
`) TRIAL BY JURY
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, ANDREW B. MELNICK, individually, and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, by and through his undersigned attorneys, based upon personal
`
`knowledge with respect to himself, on information and belief derived from
`
`investigation of counsel, and review of public documents as to all other matters,
`
`complains against Defendant, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US, LLC, d/b/a FanDuel
`
`Sportsbook (“FanDuel”), as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`1. This case involves an unlawful pattern and practice of unfair and deceptive
`
`trade practices on the part of FanDuel, an on-line sports gaming platform with
`
`a membership, upon information and belief, in excess of 6,000,000 people,
`
`spanning across (10) ten states, of providing materially false and misleading
`
`information to customers while making wagers on live sporting events via its
`
`digital platform.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`ANDREW B. MELNICK, individually,
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US, LLC,
`
`d/b/a FANDUEL SPORTSBOOK,
`
`an Illinois limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) PLAINTIFF DEMANDS
`) TRIAL BY JURY
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff, ANDREW B. MELNICK, individually, and on behalf of all others
`
`similarly situated, by and through his undersigned attorneys, based upon personal
`
`knowledge with respect to himself, on information and belief derived from
`
`investigation of counsel, and review of public documents as to all other matters,
`
`complains against Defendant, BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US, LLC, d/b/a FanDuel
`
`Sportsbook (“FanDuel”), as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`1. This case involves an unlawful pattern and practice of unfair and deceptive
`
`trade practices on the part of FanDuel, an on-line sports gaming platform with
`
`a membership, upon information and belief, in excess of 6,000,000 people,
`
`spanning across (10) ten states, of providing materially false and misleading
`
`information to customers while making wagers on live sporting events via its
`
`digital platform.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 2 of 33 PageID #:2
`
`2. More specifically, while purporting to provide its customers with real-time,
`
`live sports game data, FanDuel regularly understates the time remaining in
`
`a given live sporting event in order to induce its customers to make wagers
`
`that they are more likely to lose, and/or that are riskier, than if they were
`
`being provided accurate, real-time information in connection with their live
`
`wagering.
`
`3. Plaintiff seeks both damages for himself, as well as the Multi-State Class and,
`
`alternatively, for the State-Wide Classes or sub-classes, and an order
`
`enjoining the further operation of the FanDuel platform until its app (the
`
`“App”) as represented, accurately reflects the time remaining in a given live
`
`sporting event.
`
`The Parties
`
`4. Plaintiff, ANDREW B. MELNICK (“Melnick”), is an individual and citizen of
`
`the State of Illinois residing at 906 Oxford Road, Deerfield, Illinois 60015.
`
`Melnick is a customer/member of FanDuel.
`
`5. On March 2, 2021, Melnick attempted to contact customer service of FanDuel
`
`via telephone to notify FanDuel of the unfair and deceptive acts and practices
`
`alleged herein and attempted to obtain a full refund; all to no avail.
`
`6. By written correspondence dated March 2, 2021, Melnick exercised his right
`
`to opt-out of the paragraph of the “Terms of Use” of FanDuel otherwise
`
`purportedly requiring arbitration of disputes and a Class Action Waiver
`
`(“Terms and Conditions”). See Terms of Use at Paragraph 15.6. (A true and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 3 of 33 PageID #:3
`
`correct copy of Melnick’s correspondence dated March 2, 2021, and the Terms
`
`of Use of FanDuel are attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B”, respectively,
`
`and made a part hereof.).
`
`7. While the Terms of Use, at Paragraph 15.7 contain a forum selection clause
`
`for courts located in New York and a choice law provision for the application
`
`of New York law, there are public interest factors which strongly outweigh the
`
`enforcement of that provision and the State of New York has little or no
`
`connection to this dispute.
`
`8. Defendant, FanDuel, is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its place of business located at
`
`6701 Center Drive West, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90045.
`
`9. FanDuel has been operating its sports-betting platform since approximately
`
`July 2020. (the “relevant period”).
`
`10. FanDuel’s two managers are Samuel Levin and John Hindman, both with
`
`offices located at 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California
`
`90045.
`
`11. Plaintiff is currently unaware of the identities of those holding membership
`
`interests in FanDuel as that information is not publicly available.
`
`12. FanDuel is a gaming company that offers sportsbook, daily fantasy sports,
`
`online casino and online horse race betting products through its free
`
`downloadable app, and has been offering the same in ten (10) states since
`
`approximately July 2020.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 4 of 33 PageID #:4
`
`13. FanDuel accepts bets in the States of Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West
`
`Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, Tennessee, Virginia and Michigan through
`
`the FanDuel online sportsbook and betting app that represents the evolution
`
`of daily fantasy sports sites into full-on sports and live wagering. The FanDuel
`
`app is available for download on the iPhone smartphone, iPad Touch handheld
`
`computer, the iPad tablet computer and android operating systems via iTunes
`
`App Store and Google Play store. FanDuel does not offer on-line sports
`
`wagering to citizens or residents of the State of New York.
`
`14. FanDuel permits its members to make a number of types of wagers on its
`
`platform including, but not limited, to “Totals” or what are referred to as
`
`“Unders” and “Overs” on a live basis; while the sporting event is underway.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
`
`Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). The amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, there are
`
`more than 100 putative class members and minimal diversity exists because
`
`many putative class members are, upon information and belief, citizens of
`
`different states than FanDuel.
`
`16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over FanDuel because it is authorized to
`
`and regularly conducts business in the State of Illinois.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 5 of 33 PageID #:5
`
`17. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because FanDuel
`
`resides in this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.
`
`
`
`Facts Specific to Plaintiff
`
`18. On or about February 26, 2021, Plaintiff downloaded the app for FanDuel on
`
`his cellular android smartphone from the Google Play store.
`
`19. On or about February 26, 2021, Plaintiff deposited $100.00US into his account
`
`on FanDuel for the purpose of making wagers on the FanDuel platform; which
`
`monies were immediately available for wagering on live sporting events via
`
`the App.
`
`20. On February 28, 2021, Plaintiff began placing wagers on the FanDuel
`
`platform focusing on men’s NCAA college basketball where, after the start of
`
`the sporting event, he made live wagers on the “Unders.”
`
`21. The “Totals” or “Over/Under” bet is a wager in which a sportsbook will predict
`
`a number in a given game (usually the combined score of the two teams), and
`
`the bettor’s wager that the actual number in the game will be either higher or
`
`lower than the number.
`
`22. The betting platform on FanDuel purports to display on the customer’s
`
`smartphone, via the App, the time elapsed, score and the odds of a given wager
`
`in a given sporting event on a real-time basis.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 6 of 33 PageID #:6
`
`23. By way of example, below are photographs of two (2) screen shots from the
`
`FanDuel platform of the New Orleans v. Incarnate Word NCAA men’s college
`
`basketball game taken on March 1, 2021, the first at 8:52 p.m., and the second
`
`a minute later at 8:53 p.m. The first shows six (6) minutes remaining in the
`
`second half of the game and the second shows eight (8) minutes remaining in
`
`the second half of the same game when wagers were still being accepted on
`
`the “Overs” and “Unders”:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:7
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID #:7
`
`ADD FUNDS
`
`$2.83
`
`-104
`
`,
`
`, -120
`
`4TH QUARTER 11‘
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`® COLLEGE BASKET...
`
`SPREAD
`
`MONFY
`
`Tom
`
`Sam Houston
`St
`
`Houaton
`Baptist
`
`uvg 2ND HALF 2‘
`
`New Orleans
`
`Incarnate Word
`
`2ND HALF 6'
`
`'
`Ark Pine Bluff
`
`Jackson State
`
`2ND HALF 13'
`
`.
`Arizona
`
`Oregon
`
`1ST HALF
`
`31
`
`63
`
`71
`
`57
`
`3
`
`7
`
`35
`
`36
`
`40
`
`E
`
`IE]
`
`El
`
`@I
`
`fi
`
`Q
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`-
`
`2200
`
`0158.5
`415
`
`+980
`
`U 158.5
`-111
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`+146
`
`0123.5
`413
`
`180
`
`U 123.5
`.113
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`+210
`
`265
`
`0151.5
`411
`
`U 151.5
`415
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`-12.5
`-111
`
`+125
`415
`
`+2.5
`413
`
`—2.5
`413
`
`+5.5
`415
`
`-5.5
`-111
`
`0
`Home
`
`AZ
`
`8(3)
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID #:8
`
` FANDUEL
`
`$233
`ADDFUNDS
`
`'
`9 NO Pelicans
`
`107
`
`'
`' -106
`
`-9000
`'
`
`>120
`
`4TH QUARTER 11‘
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`® COLLEGE BASKET...
`
`SPREAD
`
`MONLY
`
`101m
`
`Sam Houston
`St
`
`Houaton
`Baptist
`
`83131
`
`65
`
`£1
`
`El
`
`£1
`
`Q
`
`1%
`
`2ND HALF 1'
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`New Orleans
`
`Incarnate Word
`
`2ND HALF 8'
`
`.
`Ark Pine Bluff
`
`Jackson State
`
`L1VL 2ND HALF 15'
`
`.
`Arizona
`
`Oregon
`
`1ST HALF
`
`4
`
`7
`
`58
`
`37
`
`35
`
`36
`
`4
`
`O
`
`-14.5
`v -113
`
`‘+14.5
`413
`
`+2.5
`415
`
`-2.5
`—111
`
`+5.5
`415
`
`-5.5
`~111
`
`E]
`
`[E]
`
`0 160.5
`-111
`
`U 160.5
`' 415
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`+142
`
`0122.5
`-106
`
`176
`
`U 122.5
`420
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`+210
`
`_
`
`265
`
`0151.5
`411
`
`U 151.5
`415
`
`MORE WAGERS >
`
`C1
`Home
`
`A2
`
`‘
`
`8%
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`8
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 9 of 33 PageID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24. Based upon the information provided on the FanDuel platform, on February
`
`28, 2021, Melnick made a number of wagers on the “Totals” or “Unders”
`
`betting that the combined score or Total of the two (2) competing men’s college
`
`NCAA basketball teams would be less than a given number. (the “Wagers”).
`
`25. Plaintiff made all of the Wagers after the sporting events had begun and, in
`
`many cases, based upon false reporting by FanDuel of the elapsed time and,
`
`in some cases, the then scores of the live sporting events.
`
`26. The accuracy of the real-time information provided by FanDuel on its platform
`
`and displayed at the time Plaintiff placed his live wagers was critical to the
`
`determination of the risk and reward associated with a given wager and
`
`whether to place his bet on the “Over” or the “Under” option.
`
`27. After placing a number of the live Wagers, made after the start of the
`
`particular sporting events, and losing over $50US, Plaintiff discovered that
`
`the purportedly real-time information provided to him by FanDuel on the
`
`FanDuel platform was repeatedly false and materially so.
`
`28. For example, Plaintiff discovered that the time elapsed in sporting events, in
`
`particular men’s NCAA college basketball,
`
`is
`
`frequently materially
`
`understated on the real-time display on the FanDuel platform in a range of 5
`
`to 35 percent less than the actual time remaining in the sporting event,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 10 of 33 PageID #:10
`
`making the Wagers on the “Under” during the game appear to be a far better
`
`bet than they otherwise actually are.
`
`29. Similarly, in some instances, the score reported on the FanDuel platform was
`
`inaccurate and materially different from the actual score in relation to the
`
`time shown left in the game at the moment when Plaintiff placed the Wagers.
`
`30. As a result of the above-mentioned deceptive, dishonest and unfair pattern
`
`and practices of FanDuel, Plaintiff and, upon information and belief,
`
`hundreds of thousands of other members of FanDuel, have lost millions of
`
`dollars in wagers as a proximate result of the same - as well as having paid
`
`fees to FanDuel for the privilege of placing their wagers.
`
`31. More specifically, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a result of
`
`this pattern and practice as they have made and lost wagers that they would
`
`not have made had they known the actual time remaining in the given
`
`sporting event or, in the alternative, they would have, instead, wagered on the
`
`“Over” and won that wager, rather than losing a wager placed on the “Under.”
`
`32. For this deceptive, dishonest and unfair pattern and practice, Plaintiff seeks
`
`recovery on his behalf and on behalf of the thousands of similarly situated
`
`class members in the ten (10) states where the membership of FanDuel
`
`resides and places their wagers.
`
`33. The App, which includes a geostationary device, requires that the members of
`
`FanDuel place a wager while located in the state where they are registered
`
`and reside. Thus, for example, an Illinois resident who placed a wager on a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 11 of 33 PageID #:11
`
`given day - a time-record that is kept on the FanDuel platform App - would
`
`necessarily have been located in the State of Illinois when he or she placed
`
`their wager.
`
`Class Action Allegations
`
`34. Pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and
`
`the following Multi-State Class and, alternatively, State-Wide Classes or
`
`sub-classes (collectively, “Class”):
`
`Multi-State Class:
`
`a. All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period on an
`
`“Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App
`
`after the beginning of the sporting event and who reside in one of the
`
`following states: Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
`
`Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, Tennessee, Virginia and Michigan.
`
`b. Plaintiff also, in the alternative, brings this action on behalf of the
`
`following State-Wide Classes or sub-classes:
`
`Illinois Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period on
`
`an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App after the
`
`beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of Illinois.
`
`New Jersey Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant
`
`period on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 12 of 33 PageID #:12
`
`App after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of New
`
`Jersey.
`
`Pennsylvania Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant
`
`period on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and
`
`App after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of
`
`Pennsylvania.
`
`West Virginia Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant
`
`period on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and
`
`App after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of West
`
`Virginia.
`
`Indiana Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period on
`
`an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App after the
`
`beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of Indiana.
`
`Iowa Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period on an
`
`“Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App after the
`
`beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of Iowa.
`
` Colorado Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period
`
`on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App
`
`after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of Colorado.
`
` Tennessee Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant
`
`period on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 13 of 33 PageID #:13
`
`App after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of
`
`Tennessee.
`
`Virginia Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant period
`
`on an “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and App
`
`after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of Virginia.
`
`Michigan Class: All persons who placed a wager during the relevant
`
`period on and “Under” on a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform and
`
`App after the beginning of a sporting event and reside in the State of
`
`Michigan.
`
`35. Excluded from the Class are FanDuel and its officers, directors, legal
`
`representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and their assigns and any judicial
`
`officer presiding over this matter, members of their immediate family,
`
`members of their judicial staff, and any judge sitting in the presiding court
`
`who may hear an appeal of any judgment entered.
`
`36. Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate
`
`because Plaintiff can prove the elements of his claim on a class-wide basis
`
`using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in
`
`individual actions asserting the same claims.
`
`37. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the
`
`Multi-State Class and/or State-Wide Classes proposed hereunder under Rule
`
`23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and satisfies the numerosity,
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 14 of 33 PageID #:14
`
`commonality, typicality, adequacy and predominance, and superiority
`
`requirements of its provisions.
`
`38. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Multi-State Class and State-Wide
`
`Classes definitions based upon information learned through discovery.
`
`39. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Consistent with Rule 23(a)(1), the
`
`members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that
`
`the joinder of all members is impractical. While the exact number of class
`
`members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, there are purported to be over
`
`6,000,000 members of the FanDuel platform and App, and members of
`
`the Class can be readily identified through FanDuel’s records.
`
`40. Commonality and Predominance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). This
`
`action involves common questions of law and fact that predominate over any
`
`questions affecting individual Class members. The common questions
`
`include, but are not limited to:
`
`a. Whether FanDuel engaged in the conduct alleged herein;
`
`b. Whether the conduct engaged in by FanDuel was unfair or deceptive;
`
`c. Whether FanDuel violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
`
`Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, et seq., with respect to citizens of
`
`the State of Illinois;
`
`d. Whether FanDuel violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, 56:8-
`
`1, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of New Jersey;
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 15 of 33 PageID #:15
`
`e. Whether FanDuel violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
`
`and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1, et seq., with respect to
`
`citizens of the State of Pennsylvania;
`
`f. Whether FanDuel violated the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act,
`
`Article 6, § 46A-6-101, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of
`
`West Virginia;
`
`g. Whether FanDuel violated the Indiana Unfair and Deceptive Acts and
`
`Practices Act, § 24-5-0, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of
`
`Indiana;
`
`h. Whether FanDuel violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa Code §
`
`714.16, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of Iowa;
`
`i. Whether FanDuel violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, 6-1-
`
`101, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of Colorado;
`
`j. Whether FanDuel violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, §
`
`47-18-101, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of Tennessee;
`
`k. Whether FanDuel violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of
`
`1977, § 59.1-196, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of
`
`Virginia;
`
`l. Whether FanDuel violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, §
`
`445.901, et seq., with respect to citizens of the State of Michigan;
`
`m. Whether FanDuel breached its contract with Plaintiff and the Class;
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 16 of 33 PageID #:16
`
`n. Whether FanDuel has been unjustly enriched under applicable state
`
`laws;
`
`o. Whether FanDuel should be required to disgorge all profits; and
`
`p. Whether FanDuel should be enjoined from the further operation of its
`
`betting platform and App until it repairs its platform such that it
`
`performs in a fair fashion and consistent with its promise of providing
`
`accurate real-time data for its members.
`
`41. Each of the consumer fraud statutes from the ten (10) states where FanDuel
`
`operates its sports wagering platform, as alleged, generally prohibit deceptive or
`
`unfair acts or practices in the course of a trade or business, and grant the consumer
`
`standing to assert claims thereunder.
`
` 42. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of other Class
`
`members’ claims because Plaintiff and the Class members were subjected to the
`
`same alleged unlawful conduct and damaged in the same way, i.e., they all lost
`
`money to FanDuel as a result of the inaccurate real-time information provided to
`
`them while making live wagers on the FanDuel platform and using its App; conduct
`
`which is considered an unfair and deceptive act and practice; and/or against the
`
`consumer protection laws of the ten (10) states wherein FanDuel currently operates
`
`its sports betting platform.
`
`43. Adequacy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Consistent with Rule 23(a)(4), Plaintiff, and
`
`his counsel, will fairly and adequately represent the Class a n d h a v e the best
`
`interests of the members of the Class in mind. Plaintiff a n d h i s c o u n s e l a r e
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 17 of 33 PageID #:17
`
`n o t a w a r e o f any conflicts of interest with the Class. Plaintiff’s counsel are
`
`also competent and experienced in litigating federal and state court class action
`
`litigation, including experience in consumer protection claims. Plaintiff and his
`
`counsel intend to vigorously prosecute this case in the best interest of the class.
`
`44. Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to other available
`
`methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of these claims because individual
`
`joinder of the claims of all members of the Class is impracticable. Many members of
`
`the Class are, or may be, without the financial resources necessary to pursue this
`
`matter, and even if some could afford to litigate claims separately, such a result
`
`would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individualized cases would
`
`proceed. Individual litigation increases the time and expense of resolving a common
`
`dispute concerning FanDuel’s actions toward an entire group of individuals.
`
`Class action procedures allow for far fewer management difficulties in matters of
`
`this type and provide the unique benefits of unitary adjudication, economies of scale,
`
`and comprehensive supervision over the entire controversy by a single judge in a
`
`single court.
`
`45. The Class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure because, inter alia, FanDuel acted on grounds generally applicable to
`
`the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding compensatory
`
`relief appropriate with respect to the claims raised by the Class.
`
`46. The Class may also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 18 of 33 PageID #:18
`
`of Civil Procedure because questions of law and fact common to members of the
`
`Class will predominate over questions affecting individual members, and a class
`
`action is superior to other methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
`
`controversy and causes of action described in this Class Action Complaint.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`815 ILCS 505, et seq. (“ICFA”).
`
`
`
`47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 47
`
`of Count I.
`
`48. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State
`
`Class and the Illinois Class for a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
`
`Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, et seq. (“ICFA”).
`
`49. The ICFA prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`50. The terms “unfair” and “deceptive” as used in the ICFA are disjunctive, not
`
`conjunctive. In other words, a practice may violate the prohibition against unfairness
`
`while not violating the prohibition against deception, and vise-versa.
`
`51. At all relevant times, FanDuel violated the ICFA by knowingly providing data to
`
`its membership regarding the time remaining in the given live sporting event,
`
`purportedly real-time based, that was materially false, understated and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`52. FanDuel’s’ practice was a deceptive practice.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 19 of 33 PageID #:19
`
`53. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was unfair.
`
`54. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was violative of the public policy of the State of
`
`Illinois.
`
`55. FanDuel’s practice was deceptive and an unfair practice, and violative of the
`
`ICFA.
`
`56. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of
`
`this pattern and practice as they have made and lost wagers they would not have
`
`made had they known the truthful, actual time remaining in the given live sporting
`
`event or, in the alternative, they would have wagered on the “Over” and won the
`
`wager, rather than making and losing the “Under” wager.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, 56:8-1, et seq.
`
`
`57. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 57
`
`of Count II.
`
`58. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State Class
`
`and the New Jersey Class for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
`
`56:8-1, et seq.(“NJCFA”).
`
`59. The NJCFA prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 20 of 33 PageID #:20
`
`60. At all relevant times, FanDuel violated the NJCFA by knowingly providing data
`
`to its membership about the time remaining in a given live sporting event,
`
`purportedly real-time based, that was materially false, understated and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`61. FanDuel’s’ practice was a deceptive practice.
`
`62. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was unfair.
`
`63. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was violative of the public policy of the State of
`
`New Jersey.
`
`64. FanDuel’s practice was deceptive and an unfair practice, and violative of the
`
`NJCFA.
`
`65. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of
`
`this pattern and practice as they have made and lost wagers they would not have
`
`made had they known the truthful, actual time remaining in the given live sporting
`
`event or, in the alternative, they would have wagered on the “Over” and won the
`
`wager rather than making and losing the “Under” wager.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
`Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq.
`
`
`
`66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 66
`
`of Count III.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 21 of 33 PageID #:21
`
`67. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State Class
`
`and the Pennsylvania Class for a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
`
`Practices Act and Consumer Protection Laws, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq. (“PCPL”).
`
`68. The PCPL prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`69. At all relevant times, FanDuel violated the PCPL by knowingly providing data to
`
`its membership regarding the time remaining in a given live sporting event,
`
`purportedly real-time based, that was materially false, understated and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`70. FanDuel’s’ practice was a deceptive practice.
`
`71. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was unfair.
`
`72. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was violative of the public policy of the State of
`
`Pennsylvania.
`
`73. FanDuel’s practice was a deceptive and an unfair practice, and violative of the
`
`PCPL.
`
`74. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of
`
`this pattern and practice as they have made and lost wagers they would not have
`
`made had they known the actual time remaining in the given live sporting event or,
`
`in the alternative, they would have wagered on the “Over” and won the wager rather
`
`than making and losing the “Under” wager.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 22 of 33 PageID #:22
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Violations of the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act
`Article 6, § 46A-6-101, et seq.
`
`
`
`75. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 75
`
`of Count IV.
`
`76. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State Class
`
`and the West Virginia Class for a violation of the West Virginia Consumer Protection
`
`Act, Article 6, § 46A-6-101, et seq. (“WVCPA”).
`
`77. The WVCPA prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`78. At all relevant times, FanDuel violated the WVCPA by knowingly providing data
`
`to its membership regarding the time remaining in a given live sporting event,
`
`purportedly real-time based, that was materially false, understated and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`79. FanDuel’s’ practice was a deceptive practice.
`
`80. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was unfair.
`
`81. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was violative of the public policy of the State of
`
`West Virginia.
`
`82. FanDuel’s practice was a deceptive and an unfair practice, and violative of the
`
`WVCPA.
`
`83. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of
`
`this pattern and practice as they have made and lost wagers they would not have
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 23 of 33 PageID #:23
`
`made had they known the truthful, actual time remaining in the given live sporting
`
`event or, in the alternative, they would have wagered on the “Over” and won the
`
`wager rather than making and losing the “Under” wager.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Violations of the Indiana Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, § 24-5-0
`
`COUNT V
`
`84. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 84
`
`of Count V.
`
`85. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State Class
`
`and Indiana Class for violation of the Indiana Unfair and Deceptive Acts and
`
`Practices Act, § 24-5-0, et seq. (“IUDA”).
`
`86. The IUDA prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`87. At all relevant times, FanDuel violated the IUDA by knowingly providing data to
`
`its membership regarding the time remaining in a given live sporting event,
`
`purportedly real-time based, that was materially false, understated and/or
`
`misleading.
`
`88. FanDuel’s’ practice was a deceptive practice.
`
`89. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was unfair.
`
`90. FanDuel’s pattern and practice was violative of the public policy of the State of
`
`Indiana.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-01178 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 24 of 33 PageID #:24
`
`91. FanDuel’s practice was a deceptive and unfair practice, and violative of the
`
`IUDA.
`
`92. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a result of this pattern and practice
`
`as they have made and lost wagers they would not have made had they known the
`
`truthful, actual time remaining in the given live sporting event or, in the alternative,
`
`they would have wagered on the “Over” and won the wager rather than making and
`
`losing the “Under” wager.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`Violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa Code, § 714.16, et seq.
`
`
`
`93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 46 above as Paragraph 93
`
`of Count VI.
`
`94. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of the Multi-State Class
`
`and the Iowa Class for a violation of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, § 714.16, et seq.
`
`(“ICF Act”).
`
`95. The ICF Act prohibits unfair or deceptive conduct in the course of a trade or
`
`business.
`
`96. At all rel
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
