A US federal judge has denied DraftKings’ request to fast-track an appeal in a lawsuit brought by MLB players.
A US federal judge has denied DraftKings’ request to fast-track an appeal in a lawsuit brought by Major League Baseball players over the unauthorised use of their names, images and likenesses on its sports betting platform.
MLB Players Inc (MLBPI) is suing DraftKings for misappropriation of publicity and unjust enrichment, claiming the company used players’ identities without permission on its online sportsbook platforms and social media posts.
In March, District Judge Marston largely rejected DraftKings’ motion to dismiss the case.
The company then sought to certify portions of that ruling for immediate appeal under federal law, arguing four separate legal questions warranted urgent review by a higher court.
However, in a memorandum issued yesterday (21 May), Judge Marston rejected all four proposed questions for certification, dealing a significant blow to DraftKings’ legal strategy.
Key DraftKings arguments fail to meet standards
The judge was particularly critical of DraftKings’ handling of two issues — whether the company could circumvent class action rules and whether sublicensees could bring such claims.
District Judge Marston said: “DraftKings did not adequately raise the propriety of group licensing as an issue in its briefing on the motion to dismiss.”
The court found that certification was inappropriate because these issues were not adequately raised or resolved by the earlier ruling.
The court also rejected DraftKings’ arguments about news reporting exceptions and unjust enrichment claims, finding they would not advance the case’s resolution even if successful on appeal.
The judge added: “It remains premature to rule on the factual question of whether those uses are ‘newsworthy’.”
This means the case would still require extensive fact-finding and potentially trial even if DraftKings won on appeal regarding news reporting protections.
The ruling means the case will now proceed through normal litigation channels, with discovery, depositions and potentially trial.
The judge argued there was a strong policy against piecemeal appeals and that immediate appeal would create confusion and delay caused by protracted, piecemeal litigation.