After prevailing in a similar lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York in July, Cote’s ruling drew many of the same conclusions as the judge drew in that case. Both cases observed that there were clear opportunities for the plaintiffs to read the terms of service surrounding the $1,000 deposit bonus and the “No Sweat” bet, so they cannot argue that DraftKings was misleading in how these offers were presented.
Plaintiffs didn’t have a specific DK ad in mind
Cote also pushed back at the suit because the plaintiffs could not point to the exact advertisement the plaintiffs had seen. The plaintiffs tried to argue that didn’t makker because all of the ads are relatively the same, but Cote said a specific example is necessary in order to state a claim.
She went into more detail on other elements of the case, ..
