The difference between the car lease ad and DFS is that car ads clearly describe the terms in the advertising. DFS ads do not follow that same policy from what I recall. They would certainly make the average person think there was a freeroll.

Many former online poker players were trained to read the T&Cs to see how much rake was needed to receive the chips. That is unique in online gambling. Casino players and sports bettors get the chips upfront. There are also free bankrolls in poker. The DFS ads seemed like implied free bankrolls IMO. Surely I'm not the only one that can see that interpretation.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the false advertising claims. I'm really shocked the sites decided to fight in NY. They had what appeared to be a free pass if they went away quietly. Maybe that wasn't the case. I can't help but wonder if their arrogance is blinding their ability to make good decisions.

No, YOU are still missing the point. General perception is what shapes what becomes legal or illegal.
And in this case, things obviously don't look good for DFS.

It is kinda funny that Schneiderman attacks the sites because their ads showed gross winnings rather than net winnings. Seems like a legalistic way of saying "But how much did you lose?" Also it means even less respect for Bradley C. and his $349. I was hoping that was his profit.

What if NY AG prevails here? These sites don't have $100m each laying around, or so it seems. Could player funds be used to satisfy the judgment? It isn't like there is a gaming commission to protect player interests here. I doubt they have insurance that would cover a nine-figure civil judgment in this type of case.

I'm just thinking allowed and wondering what others think about that. It seems like a legitimate concern and point of discussion.

Would probably be tied up in courts for years due to appeals, so wouldn't worry too much about it.

Doubt this thing is around in 2017. If it shifts to playing against only people from your state no one would play because no millionaire makers or huge prize pools.

It would be like poker here where there's like 20 people playing

If he does prevail, is there another avenue for appeal? Not a lawyer, so I don't know, but it seems like this is the kind of thing usually done in class action lawsuits. Anyway, as it concerns player funds, I don't think they'd be okay with robbing current players to pay others.

I'm wondering also if the AG is pulling the fraud card because he's losing confidence in his contention that DFS is gambling but season-long fantasy is not. I think that's still the bigger question. If the AG doesn't prevail on that issue, then the industry can carry on. The fraud assertion, if proven, could only wipe out DK and FD right? But other sites are spared?

Yes, the appeals could drag this on for years if FD/DK can afford to do so. The action appears to be only against DK/FD. The others don't have the same marketing presence. As for DFS vs season, the original judge ruled the differing AG opinion between the two did not affect the case.

I think the DFS sites lose the NY legality case. It seems open and shut to me. The loss recovery is a much closer call. There is precedent on both sides of the argument but the activity was not previously declared illegal in any poker/DFS case that I am aware of.

He's running for Governor.This isn't about winning,its about keeping his name in the news and being able to trot it out to play up his consumer ''protection'' mantra during the campaign.

It is fair to suspect there may be some political motivation for this. OTOH, losing a high profile case like this would be disastrous for future aspirations. An opponent could use all the resources wasted in a losing effort to their campaign's advantage. Another losing scenario is the Legislature legalizing it during the legal battle.

I'd argue he is extremely confident he has a winner in the original action. The loss recovery is more of a gamble. He could win that and still logically be a loser if the sites collapse before the case is ever resolved and money paid. He certainly won't win a popularity contest if players lose money because of the action.

The bonuses are deceptive to new players and take way to long to work off.

FD/DK will not cover the losses of every player like that. So will they retroactively cancel any tournament that had players from NY in it and credit or debit players accounts? If you won $2000 from NY players, are you going to see -$2000 in your account?

if they do that everyone would quit

What are they gonna do to people who have small account balances that won a lot? Everyone would just keep a small balance in their account

The bonus issue should be moot.There is no injured party,there is no obligation to the depositor to clear the bonus.If you object to the bonus clearance rules or any other aspect of the site you play on just cash out and leave.Everyone made a choice to sign up,no one forced to join or stay.When did we become a nation of kindergartners?

What percent of ny state lottery players are lifetime winners? About .01 percent?

That is probably a good guess but it is 100% irrelevant to DFS law in the state.

I bought a $1 scratch off once for my 18th birthday and won $10

I'm in the 0.01%

I would assume the AG asks for a ridiculous number and then would be looking to settle for something smaller would be my guess. It's not realistic to pay back the losses consider the sites only profit on the rake.

If a judge determines these are illegal gambling losses then it may not matter if DFS sites only made the rake. PokerStars just had an $870 million judgment against it in Kentucky when the state sued for gambling loss recovery. The base was $290m. Surely PokerStars didn't rake that much from Kentucky players over a five-year period. That case, if it still stands as the NY DFS one works its way through the courts, could be a very dangerous precedent if the statutes are similar.

I think it is just leverage to force the DFS sites out. It is a dangerous game of chicken for DK/FD. I think they are crazy for fighting this but taking risks is what got them where they are now.

this is a ******ed take

you are saying that they should be allowed to say literally anything in their marketing in order to get customers to the site and signing up since people can always then choose not to play once they read the fine print

Not only that, there's plenty of nuanced law regarding deceptive advertising and, shockingly, it's far more complicated than "lol guys you should have read the fine print."

Exactly. Debating the deposit bonuses and advertising is silly. The AG isn't looking for them to be fair in future marketing campaigns. Or looking to set fair industry standards for deposit bonuses. He's out to crush them and he's found another angle to hit kick them in the balls.

The bonus issue will likely be the easiest claim for the AG to prevail on. The statute is GBL 349(a) & states: "Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful."

This would be super easy for any judge or panel to rule that the bonus release as advertised was a deceptive practice.

This.

It would be if they did say literally anything,but they didn't.They simply state they will match your deposit up to $600 as an enticement to join their site,the rules are clear and you have too opt in to accept the offer.I know in the Victim States of America its unreasonable to expect consumers to do a little due diligence and simple math when applying for a school loan,mortgage or something as trivial as a DFS bonus.The commercials for the legal igambling sites in NJ are virtually identical to those put out by FD.Regular Janes and Joes talking about their winnings,and they'll even put ''free'' money in your account.

How long did it take all those misled victims to realize that FD/DK weren't gonna cut them a check for 6 Benjamins with NSA.If the victims didn't realize after a very short time that DFS is a challenge and the million$ weren't going to roll in as fast as you can fill out a line up card they aren't victims they're fools.DFS is being held to a higher standard than Flo the gekko,politicians and every car dealer in America.

Under GBL § 349, if a consumer can demonstrate that (1) the business’s act, practice, or advertisement was aimed at consumers; (2) that the act, practice omission, or advertisement was misleading in a material respect; and (3) that the consumer was injured as a result of the deceptive act, practice or advertisement, he or she will be able to sue the business and recover damages.

Parts 1&2 you might have a case.Part 3 not so much.If you played a few contests then withdrew because you thought the bonus was a scam I get it.If you kept playing despite your dislike of the bonus rules,have you incurred loss or injury?

I'm using ''you'' generically.