- A 300-year-old British law is the basis for a $300 million lawsuit against sportsbooks in Washington, D.C.
- The law, known as the Statute of Anne, allows gamblers to sue to recover losses over $25.
- Mayor Muriel Bowser has moved to retroactively exempt sports betting from the statute, effectively ending the case before it proceeds.
- Similar lawsuits are pending in several other states, raising questions about whether the ancient law still holds merit.
WASHINGTON – A centuries-old British law meant to discourage gambling is now at the heart of a legal battle in Washington, D.C. – one the city appears eager to shut down before it sets a precedent.
The law, known as the Statute of Anne, dates back to 1710 and originally allowed gamblers in England to recover losses if they exceeded a threshold. Meant to deter excessive betting, this archaic ruling remains on the books in more than 20 states with legal sports betting aside from the District of Columbia.
In D.C., it has become the backbone of a $300 million lawsuit against several major sports betting companies, where DC Gambling Recovery LLC is suing FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Caesars, and Fanatics under the District’s version of the law.
More On The Statute Of Anne
It’s not the first time the US sports betting law has been weaponized. In Kentucky, the state won a $1.2 billion judgment against PokerStars in 2021 using a version of the statute. Similar lawsuits are pending in Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Ohio, and Kentucky, all filed by anti-gambling advocates to challenge the ethics of legal sports betting and the legality as well.
The argument? Anyone who loses more than $25 betting in D.C. can sue to recover their losses. Further, if they don’t act within three months, anyone else can file the claim on their behalf.
The Secret Bailout
But instead of testing that claim in court, D.C. officials have moved quietly to ensure it never gets that far.
In April, shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Mayor Muriel Bowser inserted a provision into the city’s upcoming budget that would retroactively exempt legalized sports betting from the law. That change, likely to pass when the D.C. Council votes, would effectively invalidate the lawsuit overnight.
Critics say the move is a covert bailout of legal online sportsbooks, shielding them from what could be a costly legal reckoning. Supporters argue that the old law was never meant to apply to a regulated industry like modern sports betting, which was legalized in the District in 2018 and generates millions of dollars in local tax revenue.
Still, the Statute of Anne’s durability raises larger questions. If it’s still enforceable, does it offer a legitimate consumer protection mechanism against predatory betting behavior? Or is it simply an outdated relic being repurposed by activists in a new political battle?
Whether that holds up in court may never be answered, at least not in D.C. But in other states where similar lawsuits are pending, the 300-year-old law might yet find a new life.
