- Underdog Fantasy has filed an emergency lawsuit in California, aiming to stop Attorney General Rob Bonta from issuing what could be a game-changing opinion on the legality of daily fantasy sports (DFS) in the state.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Filed in Sacramento Superior Court, the Underdog Fantasy lawsuit claims California AG Rob Bonta lacks the statutory authority to release the long-anticipated DFS opinion. Expected as early as this week, the consequences could be devastating for Underdog and the broader fantasy sports industry.
The core of Underdog’s legal argument is procedural: that the California AG is only authorized to issue legal opinions in response to questions that pertain directly to the duties of the requesting official. In this case, the original request came from former state senator Scott Wilk, who left office in 2024, raising serious questions about the continued validity of the inquiry.
“Attorney General Bonta should be enjoined… not because he is wrong in his views on the legality of fantasy sports—though he certainly is—but because… [the] conditions [for issuing an opinion] are not mere suggestions,” wrote Underdog counsel Caleb Lin. “They are textual limitations on his responsibility.”
According to Underdog, the AG’s office has already revealed its intent: to declare all DFS (peer-to-peer, house-based, or otherwise) illegal under California betting law, then use the threat of enforcement to pressure companies like Underdog to exit the market entirely. A declaration submitted by WilmerHale attorney David Gringer even alleges that AG officials cited the 2016 Texas AG opinion that pushed DFS operators out of that state as a model for California.
Would A California Shutdown Crumble Underdog?
Underdog, which says California generates more than 10% of its annual revenue, is seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent what it calls a “legal tidal wave.” The company argues that being forced out of the country’s most populous state would result in customer flight, loss of bank and payment processor relationships, investor concerns, and long-term reputational damage.
The lawsuit also accuses Bonta’s office of disregarding internal guidance that limits when and how formal opinions should be issued… guidance that explicitly says opinions must relate to the duties of the requesting legislator or agency.
Whether the court agrees remains to be seen, but the timing of the challenge highlights what’s at stake. For years, California DFS has existed in a legal gray area. This opinion could formalize the state’s stance and set a precedent for how other jurisdictions move forward.
Until then, Underdog is fighting not just for survival in California, but to preserve the legal sports betting ambiguity that has allowed the industry to grow without regulation or taxation.
