DraftKings has sued Philadelphia, seeking to stop a city investigation into its sportsbook and online casino operations.
DraftKings has sued Philadelphia, seeking to stop a city investigation into its sportsbook and online casino operations.
The federal complaint was filed Thursday, 16 July, by DraftKings, Crown PA Gaming and Golden Nugget Online Gaming. It challenges Philadelphia’s Consumer Protection Ordinance, adopted in 2024.
City lawyers issued a subpoena on 24 April. It seeks records covering wagering revenue, customer targeting, promotions, VIP programmes and responsible gambling practices.
DraftKings says Philadelphia confirmed on 9 July that it was likely to bring a civil enforcement action. The company wants that investigation halted.
The ordinance allows Philadelphia to pursue businesses accused of unfair or deceptive conduct affecting city residents. Available remedies include restitution, legal costs and civil penalties.
DraftKings argues that Pennsylvania already created a complete statewide consumer protection system. That law gives public enforcement powers to the attorney general and district attorneys.
Philadelphia was not included. DraftKings says the city therefore cannot establish a parallel regime with different penalties and enforcement rules.
Its second argument reaches further. Pennsylvania’s Gaming Act gives the Gaming Control Board general and sole authority over gaming and related activities.
That point gives DraftKings a credible case, particularly against enforcement involving promotions, wagering data and responsible gambling. Those subjects already sit within the board’s regulatory structure.
Pennsylvania courts back gaming regulator over cities
The Pennsylvania precedent also presents a problem for Philadelphia.
In the 2007 case Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. City Council of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court blocked a Philadelphia casino-siting referendum that would have nullified locations approved by state gaming regulators.
The court held that Philadelphia could not use local power to obstruct decisions reserved for state gaming regulators. Later rulings, while mostly focused on retail gaming, have continued treating gaming as a matter of statewide concern.
Still, DraftKings does not have an automatic victory. Philadelphia’s ordinance applies across industries and does not expressly regulate betting odds, licences or game operation.
The city can argue that it is policing deception, not gaming. Licensed operators remain subject to generally applicable laws outside the Gaming Act.
That distinction may decide the case. DraftKings’ gaming pre-emption claim appears strongest when directed at the subpoena’s operational demands.
Its broader attack on the entire ordinance faces a higher barrier. Pennsylvania courts require a clear conflict or evidence that state lawmakers occupied the whole field.
The consumer protection statute names state enforcers but does not expressly prohibit municipal ordinances. Philadelphia will likely argue that its law supplements state protection rather than contradicting it.
The ordinance remains legally valid unless a court rules otherwise. DraftKings has nevertheless identified substantial questions over enforcement authority, home-rule limits and duplicated penalties.
A narrower ruling remains possible. The court could preserve the law while blocking its application to activities supervised by state gaming regulators.