By: Christian W. Bleakley
The rise of fantasy sports platforms like PrizePicks has transformed sports gambling into an almost effortless experience. With sleek apps, instant payouts, and constant promotions, these platforms attract millions of users across the United States. Yet beneath the appearance of a fun and skill-based game lies a central legal question: Are daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) genuine games of skill or merely disguised forms of illegal gambling?
That debate sharpened in June 2025, when California residents Justin Franks and Jack Bacigalupi sued SidePrize LLC, the operator of PrizePicks. [1] They alleged that its “Pick ’Em” contests, marketed as lawful fantasy sports, were actually illegal gambling operations. [2] The complaint emphasized design features—short contests, real-time tracking, and targeted advertising—that encourage repeated play and financial loss. [3] What appears to be innovation, plaintiffs argue, is actually digital manipulation.
In July 2025, Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a legal opinion declaring both “Pick ’Em” and traditional DFS contests constitute illegal sports wagering under California Penal Code § 337a. [4] He rejected industry arguments that DFS is legal because it involves skill, stating that California law defines a wager as any agreement based on an uncertain future event, even when skill is involved.[5] Bonta’s opinion, requested by state lawmakers, has already prompted talk of future legislation to clarify the status of DFS in California. [6] This legal opinion signifies that fantasy sports platforms may no longer be able to hide behind the mere argument of “skill” to avoid California gambling laws.
The scale of PrizePicks’ marketing underscores the stakes. The lawsuit alleges the company spends over $100 million annually on advertising, particularly targeting California, the nation’s largest DFS market. [7] By leveraging algorithms to micro-target users on social media, PrizePicks delivers personalized ads that encourage frequent play. [8] This creates a gambling environment that is seamless yet highly individualized, raising serious concerns about consumer vulnerability in a digital marketplace.
Unlike traditional fantasy leagues, which span seasons and foster social interaction, PrizePicks’ contests often last just hours, offering instant results and cashouts. [9] With push notifications and gamified interfaces, the apps operate more like slot machines than weekend fantasy football. [10] Critics argue these tools accelerate cycles of risk and loss, intensifying exposure to financial harm.
California’s stance may influence other states. Even after voters rejected sports betting propositions in 2022, DFS operators continued to function largely unchecked in the state. [11]Now, the combination of the Franks lawsuit and the Attorney General’s opinion suggests regulators are no longer willing to let technology outpace the law. If other states adopt similar interpretations, companies like PrizePicks may be forced to obtain gambling licenses or withdraw from major markets.
The future of DFS apps ultimately depends on how courts and regulators strike a balance between innovation and consumer protection. Algorithms, micro-targeting, and gamification have redefined how people engage with fantasy sports, but they also magnify risks. Without consistent oversight, the promise of “easy money” may continue to harm consumers through manipulative marketing tactics.
[1] Elaine Briseño, Calif. Residents Sue Over ‘Pick ‘Em’ Fantasy Sports Contest, Law360 (June 13, 2025), https://www.law360.com/articles/2352918.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Cal. Pen. Code § 337a; Carlos E. Castañeda, Daily Fantasy Sports Betting is Illegal in California, Attorney General Rob Bonta Says, CBS San Fran. (July 4, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-daily-fantasy-sports-betting-illegal-attorney-general-bonta/.
[5] Castañeda, supra note 4.
[6] Id.
[7] Briseño, supra note 1.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.