This page covers lawsuits about the gambling itself: the game, the money, the operator's conduct toward a player. Slip-and-fall, assault and other injury claims on casino property are personal-injury law and are not covered here; the bar referral service of your state is the place to start.
So on what ground can a player sue?
The short answer
Yes: players have sued casinos, sportsbooks, social casinos, sweepstakes casinos and prediction markets on five grounds, and courts have accepted two of them often enough to pay players, the illegal-game refund and the withheld-winnings claim.
The other three are duty of care, deceptive promotions and the void contract. The guides to how gambling lawsuits and settlements work cover the procedure behind each.
The addiction ground has never produced a court award to a player in the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia as of 14 November 2026. Browse every decided and pending matter through all gambling lawsuits by category.
Counts are rendered from the case record on the build day; a pending case is a complaint, not a decision.
What the courts have actually decided
The table lists the decisions and settlements that carry the answer, grouped by ground, with the court and docket for each.
Grounds, cases and outcomes as of 14 November 2026
| Ground | Case | Court and docket | Date | Outcome | Money | Id |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Illegal game | Kater v. Churchill Downs (Ninth Circuit) | 9th Cir., 886 F.3d 784, No. 16-35010 | 28 Mar 2018 | Virtual chips are a thing of value; losses recoverable under RCW 4.24.070 | none ordered | GL-US-0002 |
| 1 Illegal game | Kater settlement | W.D. Wash. 2:15-cv-00612 | 11 Feb 2021 | Settled-final | USD 155,000,000 gross fund | GL-US-0001 |
| 1 Illegal game | Larsen v. PTT (High 5) | W.D. Wash. 3:18-cv-05275 | 7 Feb 2025 verdict; 11 Jun 2025 judgment | Judgment for the class; claims-open as of 14 Aug 2026 | USD 24,928,712.17 judgment | GL-US-0010 |
| 1 Illegal game | Armstead v. VGW Malta | Henderson County, Ky. 2022-CI-00553 | 6 Mar 2023 | Claims-closed | USD 11,750,000 settlement | GL-US-0200 |
| 1 Illegal game | Pulsz six-state settlement | Franklin County, Ala. 33-CV-2025-900072.00 | 31 Aug 2026 | Claims-open, preliminary approval | Estimated USD 14,000,000 total benefit | GL-US-0202 |
| 1 Illegal game (failed) | Burt v. Playtika | 6th Cir. | 16 Mar 2025 | Non-player has no Article III standing | none | GL-US-0040 |
| 1 Illegal game (failed) | Moore (Zhen) v. DraftKings | N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-04618-CRB, ECF 91 | 29 Jul 2026 | Loss recovery barred by California public policy | none | GL-US-0440 |
| 1 Illegal game (failed) | Dew-Becker v. Wu | Ill. Sup. Ct., 2020 IL 124472 | 16 Apr 2020 | Head-to-head daily fantasy is skill; no recovery | none | GL-US-0431 |
| 2 Refused to pay | Green v Betfred | [2021] EWHC 842 (QB) | 7 Apr 2021 | Summary judgment for the player | GBP 1,722,500.24 judgment | GL-GB-0012 |
| 2 Refused to pay | Durber v Paddy Power | [2025] EWHC 498 (KB) | 5 Mar 2025 | Summary judgment; game rules prevail | GBP 1,097,132.71 jackpot | GL-GB-0015 |
| 2 Refused to pay | OGH Goldbet | OGH 6 Ob 45/16k | 30 May 2016 | Cancellation clause grossly disadvantageous | EUR 464,806.96 plus interest | GL-AT-0511 |
| 2 Refused to pay | Davis v. BetMGM | Mich. Sup. Ct. No. 166281 | 22 Jul 2025 | Common-law claim may proceed; merits not decided | About USD 3.3 million withheld (allegation) | GL-US-0895 |
| 2 Refused to pay | McKee v. Isle of Capri | Iowa Sup. Ct. No. 14-0802, 864 N.W.2d 518 | 24 Apr 2015 | Rules and malfunction clause are the contract | USD 1.85 owed on a USD 41,797,550.16 display | GL-US-0893 |
| 2 Refused to pay | Ivey v Genting | [2017] UKSC 67 | 25 Oct 2017 | Edge sorting is cheating | GBP 7.7 million not payable | GL-GB-0006 |
| 3 Duty of care | Calvert v William Hill | [2008] EWCA Civ 1427 | 16 Dec 2008 | No general duty; no causation | About GBP 1.9 million lost | GL-GB-0001 |
| 3 Duty of care | Kakavas v Crown | [2013] HCA 25 | 5 Jun 2013 | Dismissed | About AUD 20.5 million | GL-AU-0015 |
| 3 Duty of care | Antar v. BetMGM | 3d Cir. 24-1364 (non-precedential) | 28 Apr 2025 | Dismissal affirmed | Over USD 24 million wagered | GL-US-0419 |
| 3 Duty of care | Gibson v Betfair | [2025] EWCA Civ 1589 | 8 Dec 2025 | Dismissed | GBP 1,480,728 over ten years | GL-GB-0016 |
| 3 Duty of care | Macek v. DraftKings | E.D. Pa. 5:25-cv-01995, ECF 44 | 23 Mar 2026 | Dismissed, no duty of care; appealed to 3d Cir. 26-1903 | none | GL-US-0406 |
| 3 Duty of care | Ashton v Betfair | [2026] EWHC 2935 (KB) | 13 Nov 2026 | Dismissed; appeal not confirmed in the court record | none | GL-GB-0017 |
| 3 Duty of care (exception) | Betsson, Swedish Supreme Court | HD T 607-24 | 1 Jul 2025 | Agreements invalid; player repaid | EUR 527,395 | GL-SE-0030 |
| 4 Promotions | In re Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation | D. Mass. 1:16-md-02677 | 8 Jun 2022 | Settled-final | USD 720,000 cash plus 7,280,000 DK Dollars | GL-US-0428 |
| 4 Promotions | Youngs v. DraftKings | D.N.J. 2:25-cv-00179 | 19 Nov 2025 | Motion to dismiss partially denied | none | GL-US-0402 |
| 4 Promotions | Scanlon v. DraftKings | Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex | 17 Feb 2026 | Summary judgment denied (per clerk notice and press) | none | GL-US-0400 |
| 5 Void contract | OGH 3 Ob 72/21s | OGH 3 Ob 72/21s | 20 May 2021 | bwin losses recoverable | EUR 73,536 | GL-AT-0001 |
| 5 Void contract | OGH 6 Ob 229/21a | OGH 6 Ob 229/21a | 2 Feb 2022 | Poker contract void under § 879 ABGB | EUR 16,879.28 | GL-AT-0002 |
| 5 Void contract | BGH I ZR 216/25 | BGH I ZR 216/25 | Verdict announced 28 Jan 2027 | Pending, appealed 17 Sep 2026 | EUR 10,092 at stake | GL-DE-0004 |
| 5 Void contract | CJEU C-440/23 | CJEU C-440/23 | 16 Apr 2026 | EU law does not preclude the German ban or restitution | none | GL-EU-0001 |
| 5 Void contract (failed) | Hoge Raad 2026 | ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159 | 3 Jul 2026 | Contracts not void, not voidable | none | GL-NL-0001 |
A complaint states one side's allegations, and only the court's orders decide anything. The same rule applies to the full all gambling lawsuits by category listing.
Ground 1: the game was illegal where you played, so the law lets you recover what you lost
In Washington and Kentucky a player who lost money on a game the state treats as illegal gambling can sue the operator for the money back under a loss-recovery statute, and that is the ground behind every US gambling settlement that has paid players.
The statutes are listed state by state in the tracker of gambling loss recovery statutes by US state.
Washington, Kentucky and the loss-recovery statutes
The Ninth Circuit held on 28 March 2018 (Kater v. Churchill Downs, 886 F.3d 784, No. 16-35010) that Big Fish Casino's virtual chips are a "thing of value" under Washington law, so losing them is a recoverable gambling loss under RCW 4.24.070.
The result was a USD 155 million gross fund (final approval 11 February 2021), and the jury verdict of 7 February 2025 in the High 5 Games Washington verdict and settlement produced a judgment of USD 24,928,712.17 on 11 June 2025, with claims open to 4 January 2027 per the administrator site.
Kentucky's statute (KRS 372) produced Armstead, a USD 11.75 million settlement that closed to claims on 6 March 2023.
The Pulsz six-state settlement is set to pay claimants if the court grants final approval; its cash election is estimated at 23 percent of net spend before pro rata deductions, and the formula is on the case page.
Where the same ground has failed: California, Illinois, non-player suits
The ground stops at three fences: the plaintiff must have lost money personally, the state must treat the game as illegal, and the state must allow recovery at all. Burt v.
Playtika (Sixth Circuit, 16 March 2025) denied standing to a non-player, and five Kentucky federal suits were dismissed on 26 March 2026 for the same reason (W.D. Ky., Judge Beaton, Dkt. 57).
California's public policy bars recovery of gambling losses (Zhen, N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-04618-CRB, ECF 91, 29 July 2026), and Illinois treats head-to-head daily fantasy as skill (Dew-Becker v. Wu, 2020 IL 124472, 16 April 2020).
Ground 2: the operator refused to pay what the screen or the bet slip showed
A player whose screen showed a win that the operator then refused to pay has won in court when the game rules said the screen decides and lost when the posted rules capped the prize or the operator proved cheating or an obvious error.
Green v Betfred won summary judgment for GBP 1,722,500.24 on 7 April 2021 ([2021] EWHC 842 (QB)), and Durber v Paddy Power on a GBP 1,097,132.71 jackpot on 5 March 2025 ([2025] EWHC 498 (KB)). The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH 6 Ob 45/16k, 30 May 2016) ordered EUR 464,806.96 plus interest in Goldbet.
Those English matters are judgments; payment is not confirmed in the court record. In Davis v. BetMGM the Michigan Supreme Court held on 22 July 2025 that a court, not the regulator, hears the claim, and the merits are still to be tried.
McKee v. Isle of Capri (Iowa Supreme Court, No. 14-0802, 24 April 2015) owed the player USD 1.85 against a displayed USD 41,797,550.16, because the rules and the malfunction clause were the contract.
Ivey v Genting ([2017] UKSC 67, 25 October 2017) ended with GBP 7.7 million not payable because edge sorting was cheating. The detail of each refusal is in can you sue a casino or sportsbook that refuses to pay.
Ground 3: the operator should have stopped you (duty of care and addiction)
No court in the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia has ordered a casino or sportsbook to pay a player for losses caused by the player's own gambling disorder, and the record shows 1 consumer payouts among 7 duty-of-care cases.
No federal MDL or certified class on sportsbook addiction is on record. The case pages sit under gambling addiction lawsuits against operators.
United States, United Kingdom and Australia: no court award to a player
The leading cases all end the same way: Calvert v William Hill (Court of Appeal, 16 December 2008), Gibson v Betfair (Court of Appeal, 8 December 2025) and Ashton v Betfair (High Court, 13 November 2026) in England, Kakavas v Crown Melbourne (High Court of Australia, 5 June 2013) in Australia, Antar v.
BetMGM (Third Circuit, 28 April 2025), Macek v. DraftKings (E.D. Pa., 23 March 2026) and De Leon v. DraftKings (S.D.N.Y., 11 December 2025) in the United States. Calvert allowed only a narrow assumed duty and found no causation; Gibson held there was no duty and that license-condition breaches do not void contracts.
Ashton limited any duty to preventing severe gambling disorder when foreseeable and dismissed the claim; whether it will be appealed is not confirmed in the court record. Macek is on appeal in the Third Circuit (26-1903).
De Leon, as reported, was dismissed because the terms were disclosed by hyperlink. Two US suits ended in confidential settlements, Fischer (8 July 2025) and D'Alessandro (10 July 2025), on undisclosed terms and not as court awards.
The exceptions: Sweden, Germany, Austria, Curaçao
Four courts have made an operator pay for failing to stop a player, all outside the US and UK: the Swedish Supreme Court (HD T 607-24, 1 July 2025, EUR 527,395 against Betsson), the German Bundesgerichtshof on breached self-exclusion (III ZR 65/05, 15 December 2005), the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt on a missed OASIS check (3 U 88/25, 12 November 2025, about EUR 5,500) and the Court of First Instance of Curaçao (25 May 2026, USD 143,958).
The Swedish ruling declared the agreements invalid under section 33 of the Contracts Act, as the Swedish Supreme Court Betsson ruling records.
Ground 4: the promotion or the advertising was deceptive
Promotion cases have survived motions to dismiss but none has paid a player: Youngs v. DraftKings (D.N.J., 19 November 2025) and Scanlon v. DraftKings (Massachusetts Superior Court, summary judgment denied 17 February 2026, per the clerk notice and press) are pending, De Leon was dismissed because the terms were disclosed by hyperlink, and Sale v.
BetMGM went to arbitration, as reported. In Macek's promotion suit the court partly denied dismissal on 8 April 2026 (E.D. Pa., ECF 51), where a losing first bet of up to USD 1,000 comes back as a bonus bet with no cash value.
The one settled promotion case is the 2016 daily-fantasy MDL (D. Mass. 1:16-md-02677), which paid USD 720,000 in cash plus 7.28 million DK Dollars after most claims were sent to arbitration on 27 November 2019 (final approval 8 June 2022). Every filing against the operator is listed on the DraftKings lawsuits page.
Ground 5: the contract was void because the operator had no license
In Germany and Austria players recover losses from online casinos that held no domestic license because the contract is void, a ground the US and UK do not recognize: the Austrian Supreme Court settled it in 2021 and 2022 (3 Ob 72/21s, 20 May 2021, EUR 73,536; 6 Ob 229/21a, 2 February 2022) and the German Bundesgerichtshof hears the lead case I ZR 216/25 with a verdict announced for 28 January 2027, after the Court of Justice held on 16 April 2026 (C-440/23) that EU law does not stand in the way. The wider set is online casino refund litigation in Germany and Austria.
The Dutch Supreme Court went the other way on 3 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159): pre-2021 online gambling contracts are not void and not voidable. The country-by-country detail is in can you get gambling losses back, country by country.
Two walls every US suit hits first: arbitration clauses and standing
Before any US court reaches a ground, the operator moves to compel arbitration under its terms of use, and the record splits: the Alabama Supreme Court sent the Zynga and Huuuge suits to arbitration on 25 April 2025, a Massachusetts federal court refused to send the Modo Casino case there on 14 September 2026 because the terms were illusory (per the court tracker), and another Massachusetts court confirmed an arbitrator's award for Stake.us on 16 October 2026 (per the tracker). The running list is in gambling cases and arbitration clauses.
The second wall is standing. The Sixth Circuit held on 16 March 2025 in Burt v. Playtika that a non-player has no Article III standing, and the five Kentucky dismissals of 26 March 2026 followed that reasoning.
Differences by country and state
Which ground is open depends on where you played, not on the operator.
Where each ground stands, by jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction | Illegal-game refund | Withheld winnings | Duty of care | Void contract | Source cases |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Washington | Won | No case | No case | No case | GL-US-0002, 0001, 0010 |
| Kentucky | Won (players); lost for non-players | No case | No case | No case | GL-US-0200, W.D. Ky. dismissals |
| California | Lost | No case | No case | No case | GL-US-0440 |
| Illinois | Lost (skill game) | No case | No case | No case | GL-US-0431 |
| Michigan | No case | Pending (merits untried) | No case | No case | GL-US-0895 |
| Iowa | No case | Lost | No case | No case | GL-US-0893 |
| England and Wales | No case | Won (Green, Durber); lost (Ivey) | Lost | No case | GL-GB-0012, 0015, 0006, 0001, 0016, 0017 |
| Germany | No case | No case | Won on narrow facts | Won in the lower courts; pending at BGH | GL-DE-0549, 0552, 0004 |
| Austria | No case | Won | No case | Won | GL-AT-0511, 0001, 0002 |
| Australia | No case | No case | Lost (Kakavas); lost (Guy, deceptive design) | No case | GL-AU-0015, 0014 |
| Sweden | No case | No case | Won | No case | GL-SE-0030 |
| Netherlands | No case | No case | No case | Lost | GL-NL-0001 |
| Curaçao | No case | No case | Won (first instance) | No case | GL-CW-0029 |
The hub for gambling lawsuits in the United States separates the state grounds. Read the gambling lawsuits in the United Kingdom page for the English duty-of-care line.
What this page does not cover
Injury on casino property, assault, defamation and debts the casino is suing you for are not on this page. The record's casino-versus-player debt cases (Ritz v Al Geabury, 31 July 2015; Les Ambassadeurs v Yu, 24 August 2021) sit on the hub for casino patron lawsuits over unpaid jackpots and exclusions.
The only defamation case on record is an Irish bookmaker case, GL-IE-0002 (Dublin Circuit Court [2024] IECC 5, 21 June 2024, EUR 7,500), not a casino.
Addiction help is not a lawsuit. The helplines box below leads to gambling helplines by country, and the charter applies here: filing a claim is free, and GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.
Tax questions about casino losses and winnings belong to the IRS. For settlement payments see are gambling settlement payments taxable.
Questions people ask
Can you actually sue a sportsbook over gambling losses?
You can file, and dozens have since 2023, but no US sportsbook suit over losses has reached a judgment or a class settlement for players: the addiction suits were dismissed (De Leon 11 December 2025, Macek 23 March 2026) or settled confidentially (Fischer 8 July 2025, D'Alessandro 10 July 2025), and the promotion suits are pending. See sports betting lawsuits: DraftKings, FanDuel, PrizePicks.
Can you sue a casino for not paying a jackpot?
Yes, and the screen-versus-rules distinction decides it: Green and Durber won in England because the game rules said the display decides, McKee lost in Iowa because the posted maximum and the malfunction clause were the contract. The owner page is can you sue a casino or sportsbook that refuses to pay.
Can you get gambling losses back?
Usually not, except where a court has found the game illegal (Washington, Kentucky) or the contract void (Germany, Austria), and never so far on the ground that you were addicted. The detail is in can you get gambling losses back, country by country.
How much would a gambling lawsuit pay per person?
Nobody can say before claims are counted: a settlement share is the net fund after fees, costs and awards divided across valid claims, and the only open gambling claims today are Pulsz (to 30 November 2026), High 5 (to 4 January 2027) and the New York Sweeps Coin redemption (to 31 August 2027), 5 US consumer claims in all. No payout estimate exists for a case that has not settled; see class action payout per person in gambling settlements.
Do you need a lawyer, and who pays?
Filing a claim in an existing class settlement is free and needs no lawyer; a new lawsuit needs one, and in US class actions the court sets the fee from the fund (25 percent in the four Washington social-casino settlements, 29.3 percent in DoubleDown). The steps are in how to file a claim in a gambling settlement.
German and Austrian funders take 32 to 47 percent of the recovery, as one funder's terms show; see litigation funders and online casino claims in Germany. For a lawyer, use the bar referral service of your state, never a named firm.