Dew-Becker v. Wu
123 N.E.3d 86
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiff Colin Dew-Becker and defendant Andrew Wu entered a head-to-head daily fantasy sports (DFS) contest on FanDuel on April 1, 2016; each paid $109 (including $9 fee) and the winner received $200. Plaintiff lost and sued under 720 ILCS 5/28-8 seeking recovery of gambling losses of $100.
- Plaintiff alleged the contest was gambling within the Illinois Loss Recovery Act and sought relief against the winner (Wu). Defendant argued FanDuel mediated the wager and the Act did not apply to third-party–facilitated contests.
- After an initial trial the appellate court remanded for a new trial because plaintiff had not been heard; on remand both sides presented testimony. Plaintiff testified the contest involved skill and chance; defendant emphasized FanDuel’s intermediary role and argued the Act was not intended to reach such wagers.
- The trial court ruled for defendant, concluding section 28-8 requires gambling conducted between persons (not through a third-party website). Plaintiff appealed; the appellate court applied de novo statutory interpretation and affirmed.
- The court assumed arguendo the DFS contest qualified as gambling but held the plain language of section 28-8 requires a direct person-to-person wagering relationship and was not intended to cover third-party–facilitated contests like FanDuel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Illinois Loss Recovery Act (720 ILCS 5/28-8) permits recovery for losses from a DFS contest conducted through a third‑party website (FanDuel) | Section 28-8 contains no exclusion for third‑party–facilitated gambling; DFS wagers are gambling recoverable under the Act | The Act applies only to gambling conducted directly between persons; FanDuel intermediates the wager so the Act does not apply | The Act requires a direct person-to-person wager; third‑party–facilitated DFS contests are not covered, so plaintiff cannot recover |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfine v. Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum & Perlman, 2014 IL 116362 (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- Bowman v. Ottney, 2015 IL 119000 (courts avoid constructions that defeat a statute’s purpose or yield absurd results)
- Garden View, LLC v. Fletcher, 394 Ill. App. 3d 577 (app. ct.) (bench-trial manifest-weight standard overview)
- Reuter v. MasterCard International, Inc., 397 Ill. App. 3d 915 (app. ct.) (credit card companies not "winners" under the loss-recovery statute)
- Moushon v. AAA Amusement, Inc., 267 Ill. App. 3d 187 (app. ct.) (interpretation of Act distinctions among gambling types)
- Sonnenberg v. Amaya Group Holdings (IOM) Ltd., 810 F.3d 509 (7th Cir.) (observing the Act dates from an era opposed to gambling and laws have relaxed)
- Combs v. Insurance Co. of Illinois, 146 Ill. App. 3d 957 (app. ct.) (federal decisions on Illinois law are not binding on state courts)