DraftKings Beats User’s Deceptive, Fraudulent Marketing Claims

DraftKings Inc. defeated consumer class allegations it engaged in deceptive marketing to attract more users through a fraudulent and misleading $1,000 sign-up bonus promotion.

The app’s user failed to allege that the promotion could deceive a reasonable consumer because the terms fully disclosed the requirements to be eligible for its full value in a “conspicuous manner,” Judge Margo K. Brodie of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York said Monday.

“Close to the top of the deposit screen before selecting the deposit amount, the DraftKings page prominently stated, in bold, that users ‘will receive a 20% deposit bonus up to $1,000! Bonus funds are earned as you play,’” Brodie said. “Moreover, a reasonable consumer would not be misled to think that merely signing up for a DraftsKings account would entitle them to the full $1,000 deposit bonus when the Promotional Terms specified that users can receive up to $1,000 in bonus funds.”

Nerye Aminov, who signed up for DraftKings and allegedly made an initial deposit of $500 in January 2022, sued the betting company in September 2024 for inducing consumers to sign up and use its sports betting platform through a promotion that offered new users a $1,000 deposit bonus upon signing up. He brought claims of violations to the New York General Business Law, intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and unjust enrichment.

Aminov claimed that as part of its campaign to become a gambling leader in New York, DraftKings “advertised the '$1,000 Deposit Bonus’ as a reward for signing up for its sportsbook platform” using language like “Join DraftKings Sportsbook Get $1,000 Deposit Bonus!” on its mobile app and website from 2022 to 2023. Aminov said he wouldn’t have made the “initial deposit had he known the truth” about the promotion.

DraftKings argued that every aspect of the allegedly misleading promotion is disclosed in full in the Promotional Terms before Aminov deposited money and placed a wager. The company argued that Aminov’s GBL claims should be dismissed because he failed to plead a deceptive practice, an actionable injury, and facts sufficient to meet the territoriality requirement. The court granted this motion.

The court also dismissed Aminov’s other claims. He “has not shown that his unjust enrichment claim differs from his GBL claims nor that the alleged damages are distinct,” the court said. He “abandoned” his claims of fraudulent inducement and intentional misrepresentation as well as his injunctive relief request by not responding to DraftKings’ motion to dismiss.

Shamis & Gentile PA represents Aminov. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP and Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP represent DraftKings.

The case is Aminov v. Draftkings, Inc., E.D.N.Y., No. 24-CV-8472, 7/28/25.