The American unit of Paddy Power owner Flutter is being sued under a 300-year-old law
The firms were sued in Washington DC earlier this year by a firm registered in Delaware called DC Gambling Recovery.
It claims the firms have fallen foul of a more than 300-year-old law – the Statute of Anne – that permits any person in the district who has suffered a gambling loss of more than $25 (€21) in any single sitting to recoup their losses from the winning party in a wager.
It could result in the firms having to pay millions of dollars in restitution.
Irish gambling firm Flutter Entertainment also owns Paddy Power. It has its primary stock market listing in New York. Last week, Cayman Islands-based billionaire Ken Dart revealed that a firm he controls has taken a $2.5bn stake in the Irish group.
The attorney general for Washington DC, Brian Schwalb, previously told the court that planned legislation in the district’s budgetary process would clarify that the Statute of Anne does not apply to sports wagering in the wake of the legalisation of sports betting.
That budget act was signed by the Washington mayor last month after being approved by the DC Council.
“The 2026 Budget Support Act, which includes the permanent clarification of the statute, is currently under congressional review,” noted Mr Schwalb in court filings.
Unless the US congress takes any action against the act, it should be signed into law early next month. The attorney general has insisted that this now definitively leads to the collapse of the claims against FanDuel and its rivals.
The council’s attempted sports-gambling carve-out is ineffective because it violates federal law
DC Gambling Recovery has told the court that this is not the case.
“The Council’s attempted sports-gambling carve out is ineffective because it violates federal law,” it has claimed.
It has told the court that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) makes it “unlawful” for any “governmental entity,” including the District of Columbia, to “authorise by law or compact” a “betting, gambling, or wagering scheme” that is based on “competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate”.
“Facing hefty liability and long odds on the merits, defendants sought a legislative escape hatch,” DC Gambling Recovery has claimed. “They convinced the DC Council to amend (but not repeal) its Statute of Anne, adding a new provision that would exempt their specific brand of unlawful sports betting.”
The firm has told the court that the council’s amendment to the Statute of Anne, which explicitly attempts to modify DC law to authorise sports wagering, does precisely what PASPA prohibits.
It also insists that the attempt to repeal the Statute of Anne is underpins the claim that it has made against the gambling firms.
“It confirms what was already clear: The Statute of Anne applies to defendants’ sports gambling operations,” it told the court. “Neither lobbyists nor lawyers can displace that conclusion. Nor can they shield defendants from the liability that follows from it.”
source