DraftKings fought off what it called “legally untenable” Facebook tracking privacy claims in a court filing submitted on Friday (21 February).
DraftKings fought off what it called “legally untenable” Facebook tracking privacy claims in a court filing submitted on Friday (21 February).
DraftKings has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the company by plaintiff Jeffrey Wan, who alleges that the online sports betting and casino giant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by collecting and sharing user data through tracking technologies.
The US online gaming giant argued the lawsuit is a “fundamentally flawed attempt” to stretch the decades-old statute beyond its intended scope.
DraftKings’ attorneys said: “Plaintiff’s tortured reading of the statute cannot mask the fact that DraftKings is plainly not a ‘video tape service provider’ as contemplated by the statute, and the audiovisual materials offered on DK Casino are ‘live’ and not prerecorded.”
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that DraftKings used a Facebook tracking pixel to capture and share information about users’ engagement with audiovisual content on its online casino platform, DK Casino.
Wan contends that this practice violated the VPPA, a 1988 law originally designed to prevent video rental stores from disclosing customers’ rental histories.
DraftKings argues VPPA doesn’t apply to iGaming
In its motion to dismiss, DraftKings asserted that the VPPA does not apply to its platform because the law was never meant to regulate interactive online gaming.
The company argues that it is not a “video tape service provider” under the statute and that its online casino games do not constitute “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audiovisual materials,” a key requirement under the VPPA.
DraftKings further argued Wan failed to specify which videos he allegedly watched or how any personally identifiable information (PII) was actually disclosed.
The company argues that even if some form of data collection occurred, it would not meet the legal definition of PII required to support a VPPA claim.
This case follows a similar lawsuit, Mendoza v. Caesars Entertainment, which was dismissed last year after the court ruled that online casino games did not fall under the VPPA’s jurisdiction.
DraftKings cited the decision in its defence, asserting Wan’s claim is an “overexpansive and entirely novel interpretation of the VPPA” that courts have already rejected.
DraftKings has requested that the court dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, preventing Wan from refiling his claim.