DraftKings gambling-addiction class action (Pennsylvania, dismissed, on appeal): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

On March 23, 2026 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr.) dismissed Macek v. DraftKings, No. 5:25-cv-01995, holding that DraftKings owes no duty of care to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit on April 17, 2026.

No payout, settlement or claim form exists, and the record shows no certified class. The case raises the first question for every addiction suit against a sportsbook: whether the operator owes a duty of care to problem gamblers at all.

The dismissal is read from the opinion; the appeal docket number and briefing dates rest on a docket mirror and a tracker.

What this case is about

Macek v. DraftKings Inc. was filed on April 18, 2025 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as No. 5:25-cv-01995-JFL, and its appeal is Third Circuit No. 26-1903. A complaint states one side's allegations; only the court's orders decide anything.

What the six plaintiffs allege

The six Pennsylvania plaintiffs allege that DraftKings cultivated and exploited gambling addiction through targeted promotions, VIP hosts and by soliciting self-excluded users. These are allegations from the complaint, and the court made no finding on them.

The plaintiffs are listed below, and all six are represented by Loevy and Loevy. The suit is one of the gambling addiction lawsuits we track against operators.

The claims pleaded

The complaint pleads negligence and a duty of care toward problem gamblers, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment. The amended complaint followed on July 15, 2025.

Judge Leeson's opinion works through the amended complaint's counts one by one. Defense counsel is not named in the record we hold.

A companion case, No. 2:25-cv-03632-JFL, was filed the same day as the amended complaint and pleads consumer-deception claims over three promotions. On April 8, 2026 Judge Leeson refused to consolidate it with this case because this case was closed.

Who is covered

No one is covered by any court order or fund: the case was brought on behalf of Pennsylvania DraftKings and Golden Nugget users and was dismissed on the pleadings.

The proposed class of Pennsylvania users

The proposed class was Pennsylvania users of DraftKings and Golden Nugget Online Gaming. The opinion describes no class certification motion, so no certification ruling appears in the record we hold, which is an inference from the case's posture.

Who is not covered

Users outside Pennsylvania, and people who sued on their own, are not part of this case. The state view is on the page for Pennsylvania gambling lawsuits.

Four individual suits in Philadelphia, which one tracker reports were removed to federal court, are separate cases. Every case against the operator is listed on the page for DraftKings lawsuits.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists: the class action was dismissed on March 23, 2026, there is no settlement, fund, claim form or administrator, and no gambling-addiction or duty-of-care case in our record has ever paid a player.

Two earlier individual suits against DraftKings ended in a voluntary dismissal and a confidential settlement, and their terms are not in the record. Filing a claim is free in every case on this site; GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What happens next

The next event is the Third Circuit's decision on the plaintiffs' request to certify the duty-of-care question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and no argument date has been found.

The Third Circuit appeal and the request to certify

The six plaintiffs appealed on April 17, 2026 (Doc. 46), and the appeal is Third Circuit No. 26-1903. The notice was filed from the orders at Docs. 44 and 45, and we read it from a court copy hosted by a law firm.

A docket mirror shows the appeal docketed on April 21, 2026 with six appellants. We did not read the Third Circuit docket itself.

One secondary tracker reports that the plaintiffs filed their opening brief and the certification motion on July 7, 2026, with DraftKings' brief due August 27, 2026. Whether DraftKings filed is not in the record. Open appeals of this kind are followed on the tracker of pending appeals and high court gambling cases.

What it means for players

A Third Circuit or Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that Pennsylvania law recognizes a duty of care would reopen the theory, and a ruling that it does not would end this case. We make no prediction about which is likelier.

Four individual suits in Philadelphia, reported by one tracker, would be governed by the answer. Their dockets, judges and removal date rest on that single source.

For the grounds that have worked elsewhere, see can you sue a casino or sportsbook.

Timeline

The case ran from a complaint in April 2025 to a dismissal within a year.

Briefing dates are flagged: one tracker reports them and the Third Circuit docket was not read.

What the court has decided so far

One substantive decision exists: Judge Leeson's opinion of March 23, 2026 granting DraftKings' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

The opinion of March 23, 2026

The 36-page opinion (ECF 44) held that DraftKings has no duty of care toward the plaintiffs and that the app and its promotions are not a single product. Both holdings are legal conclusions about duty and product law.

The opinion makes no finding about any plaintiff's addiction. Counts I to III, V to IX and XI were dismissed with prejudice.

Counts IV and X were also dismissed with prejudice, except Setton's conversion and unjust enrichment claims. Those were transferred to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, whose docket we have not read.

The ruling came on the pleadings, about eleven months after filing. A dismissal with prejudice means the claims cannot be pleaded again in that court, and the appeal asks the Third Circuit to review the ruling.

How other courts have ruled on the same theory

Other courts have reached the same result: the Third Circuit in Antar v. BetMGM (April 28, 2025) and the Southern District of New York in De Leon (December 11, 2025) found no duty or no product-liability theory.

In Antar the Third Circuit affirmed a dismissal in a non-precedential opinion (No. 24-1364) and found no duty of care under New Jersey law toward problem gamblers. In the DraftKings risk-free bet and VIP class action in New York, Judge Cote dismissed on December 11, 2025 (No. 1:25-cv-00644-DLC) because products-liability and gross-negligence theories failed.

The High Court of England and Wales dismissed Ashton v. Betfair on November 13, 2026 ([2026] EWHC 2935 (KB)), holding that an operator's duty is limited to preventing severe gambling disorder when it is foreseeable. UK law differs from Pennsylvania law, so that ruling is a comparison and not a precedent for this appeal.

Documents and sources

Every date and holding comes from the opinion, the complaint and the notice of appeal named here.

• Opinion, ECF 44, GovInfo, primary, March 23, 2026.
• Complaint, CourtListener RECAP, primary, April 18, 2025.
• Notice of appeal, Doc. 46, court copy hosted by a law firm, April 17, 2026.
• Third Circuit docket 26-1903, Justia mirror, secondary.
• openclassactions.com recap, secondary, supporting, October 2026.

Related cases

Related cases show the same duty-of-care question in other courts.

The companion promotions case and the other DraftKings addiction suits

A second Pennsylvania case, a consumer-deception suit over three promotions, partly survived on April 8, 2026.

• DraftKings deposit-match and risk-free bet class action (Pennsylvania): the companion case, No. 2:25-cv-03632-JFL, partly survived the motion to dismiss on April 8, 2026.
• Philadelphia individual gambling-addiction suits against DraftKings: four suits that a tracker reports were removed to federal court on September 16, 2026.
• FanDuel and DraftKings addictive design class action: S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-03464-ER, filed April 27, 2026.
• Arroyo v. DraftKings and FanDuel: Suffolk Superior Court, filed March 25, 2026.

Other DraftKings cases that are not about addiction are on the same page of DraftKings lawsuits.

Duty-of-care rulings in other courts

Two decided cases and one pending motion frame what this appeal asks.

• Sam Antar v. BetMGM gambling-addiction suit: Third Circuit, non-precedential, April 28, 2025, no duty of care under New Jersey law.
• Dane Miller v. DraftKings: a suit over about $2 million wagered, with a motion to dismiss pending.
• Ashton v. Betfair: UK High Court, [2026] EWHC 2935 (KB), November 13, 2026, duty limited to preventing severe gambling disorder when it is foreseeable.

UK law differs from Pennsylvania law, so Ashton is a comparison, not a precedent for this appeal.

Questions people ask

Is there a DraftKings gambling addiction class action?

There was one in Pennsylvania, Macek v. DraftKings, but it was dismissed on March 23, 2026 and is on appeal. The wider list is on the page for DraftKings lawsuits, Pennsylvania and beyond.

Was the DraftKings addiction lawsuit dismissed?

Yes; Judge Leeson dismissed on March 23, 2026, finding no duty of care. The plaintiffs appealed on April 17, 2026.

Is there a DraftKings addiction settlement or payout?

No; there is no settlement, fund or claim form. For how payouts are estimated where one exists, see class action payout per person.

Can I join the DraftKings addiction lawsuit?

There is no class to join; the case was dismissed. To check whether a settlement exists for another case, use the gambling settlement eligibility checker.

What is the status of the Macek appeal?

The appeal is Third Circuit No. 26-1903; no decision is reported as of November 14, 2026. That status rests on a docket mirror and a tracker.

Can I sue DraftKings for gambling addiction myself?

Individual suits are being filed, but courts so far have found no duty of care. The grounds that have worked elsewhere are on the page about can you sue a casino or sportsbook for losses.

Has anyone else sued DraftKings?

Yes; several cases are pending or decided, including the companion promotions case and three other addiction suits listed above. The Philadelphia suits and the New York and Massachusetts suits are separate dockets.