A Pennsylvania federal judge has rejected DraftKings’ bid to reject an MLB player union’s lawsuit that accused it and bet365 of unauthorised use of player likenesses.
US district judge Karen Marston said yesterday (17 March) Major League Baseball Players, Inc. (MLBPI) plausibly alleged the sportsbooks had violated players’ publicity rights under state law by using their likenesses without permission.
It follows the sportsbook’s competitor FanDuel forging a new licensing agreement with the group last November after initially also being named in the lawsuit.
The judge wrote: “Baseball may still be America’s favourite pastime, but sports gambling has become a serious threat to baseball’s crown. Here, the two collide in a case where the law is as uncertain as a Phillies playoff run.
“After a thorough consideration of the briefing and the arguments made by counsel at oral argument on February 18, 2025, the Court denies Defendants’ motions to dismiss.”
MLB lawsuit to proceed
The lawsuit, filed in September 2024, accused the two companies of misappropriating the name, image, and likeness (NIL) of MLB players without consent.
MLBPI claimed that DraftKings and bet365 prominently featured players’ NILs on their sportsbook platforms and in advertisements to attract customers.
The court’s decision focuses on three main claims. First, MLBPI alleges that the sportsbooks used players’ NILs for commercial gain without authorisation, violating Pennsylvania’s right of publicity laws.
Second, the lawsuit argues that DraftKings and bet365 unfairly profited by exploiting MLB players’ identities without compensation.
Finally, the defendants countered that their use of player NILs falls under news reporting and public interest exceptions, making it protected speech under the First Amendment.
The judge ultimately ruled the union has standing to bring the lawsuit and that the claims meet the necessary legal standards to proceed.
The court also found that the players’ NILs hold commercial value, reinforcing MLBPI’s argument that the companies’ actions constitute unauthorised commercial use.
However, the court dismissed one of MLBPI’s claims, ruling that misappropriation of identity was redundant since it was already covered under the broader misappropriation of publicity claim.