DraftKings faces Florida injunction bid over unlicensed sports wagers

The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a 72-page complaint in Broward County Circuit Court Thursday, naming DraftKings, its CEO Jason Robins, and GUS III LLC — the entity operating as DraftKings Predictions — in a civil racketeering suit that seeks to shut down the company's sports event contracts in the state entirely.

The complaint's central argument is straightforward: DraftKings is running a sportsbook in Florida without a licence, and changing the way prices look on screen does not change what the product is. On August 28, DraftKings replaced traditional American betting odds with contract prices expressed in cents. The Tribe's lawyers are unimpressed. The underlying wagers — moneylines, point spreads, totals, player props, parlays — remained intact. The interface changed. The transaction did not.

That repackaging followed a CFTC guidance note issued August 7 warning prediction market operators against displaying odds in sportsbook-style format. DraftKings moved quickly. The Tribe argues that speed is its own kind of admission.

The Seminoles have exclusive sports betting rights in Florida under a 2021 gaming compact that requires at least $2.5 billion in state revenue payments over five years. DraftKings entered the Florida market through its prediction market product in December 2025, offering contracts to customers as young as 18 — Florida's licensed framework requires 21. The complaint also cites college player props that are prohibited under the compact and that DraftKings was allegedly offering anyway.

Robins is named personally. The Tribe cites his control of roughly 89% of DraftKings' voting power and alleges he directed the Florida expansion. In my experience, personal liability claims against CEOs in commercial disputes rarely survive to trial in their original form, but they are not filed for decoration. They are filed to make settlement more expensive to delay.

The piece of the complaint I find underweighted in most coverage is the allegation that DraftKings secretly funded litigation over five years aimed at invalidating the Compact itself — including a lawsuit filed against Florida officials on September 17. If that allegation holds up in discovery, DraftKings was not simply trying to find a regulatory seam. It was trying to dismantle the framework while simultaneously operating inside the market the framework was meant to protect. Those are different categories of conduct, and courts treat them differently.

The broader market question is whether prediction market operators can thread the needle between federal commodities law — which Kalshi has argued preempts state gambling rules — and state frameworks like Florida's compact. The Sixth Circuit has already allowed states to enforce their gambling laws against Kalshi contracts. DraftKings is now in a Florida court facing the same argument from a plaintiff with statutory standing to bring it and a direct financial interest in winning.

The Tribe said it will direct any recovered funds toward consumer protection and responsible gambling programs in Florida. That framing matters less than the injunction request. If a Florida court grants it, DraftKings loses access to one of the largest states where licensed online sports betting is unavailable — which is precisely why it went there.