The sports betting industry is facing a legal threat from 1710. No, that's not a typo.

FanDuel just filed a motion to dismiss a $300 million lawsuit that uses the Statute of Anne — a law from the reign of Queen Anne of England — to claim gamblers can recover their losses from sportsbooks.

We're not making this up.

The Quick Hit

• The law: Statute of Anne, enacted in 1710
• The plaintiff: DC Gambling Recovery, a Delaware LLC
• The defendants: FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Caesars, Fanatics
• The claim: Gamblers who lost more than $25 in a single sitting can recover their losses
• The ask: Over $300 million in restitution

How Does a 300-Year-Old Law Apply?

The Statute of Anne was designed to let British gamblers recover losses above a certain threshold from whoever won their money. The idea was to discourage gambling by making winners return their winnings.

Here's the kicker: this law is still technically on the books in Washington D.C. and more than 20 other states. DC Gambling Recovery found it, dusted it off, and filed suit.

Their argument: every user who lost more than $25 (the statute's threshold) in a single betting session can reclaim their losses from the sportsbook.

If that sounds insane, you're not alone.

FanDuel's Defense

FanDuel's motion to dismiss argues that subsequent legislation — specifically, the laws that legalized sports betting — rendered the Statute of Anne inapplicable.

D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb agrees. He filed a brief supporting dismissal, arguing the statute is "irrelevant given the current federal regulations that recognize and legalize sports betting."

The sportsbooks' lawyers are essentially saying: you can't use a 314-year-old law designed to prevent gambling to sue a legal gambling company.

Makes sense to us, but judges have surprised people before.

This Isn't the Only Statute of Anne Case

Similar lawsuits are pending in Illinois, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Ohio, and Kentucky. The legal theory is spreading.

Kentucky already won a $1.2 billion judgment against PokerStars in 2021 using a similar statute. That case is what emboldened plaintiff's lawyers to try this approach against legal sportsbooks.

The Chicago sports betting tax lawsuit is one fight. This is existential. If courts allow gamblers to recover losses from legal sportsbooks, the entire industry model breaks.

What Could Happen?

Best case for sportsbooks: Courts dismiss these cases, ruling that modern gambling laws supersede 18th-century statutes.

Worst case: Courts allow the claims to proceed, opening the floodgates for every losing bettor to sue for their money back.

Most likely: Prolonged litigation that eventually gets resolved by the Supreme Court or settled for pennies on the dollar.

The prediction market wars have already headed toward the Supreme Court. Now traditional sports betting might join them.

Why This Matters

This lawsuit threatens the fundamental bargain of legal sports betting. The deal was simple: states legalize betting, tax the revenue, operators take the risk of payouts.

If gamblers can sue to recover losses, that model collapses. Why would any company operate a sportsbook if winners get paid and losers can sue for refunds?

FanDuel, DraftKings, and the rest are fighting this hard for a reason. Their entire business depends on keeping losses on the books.

The Bottom Line

A 300-year-old law designed for British gambling halls is threatening modern American sportsbooks. The legal theory is creative, the stakes are massive, and nobody knows how it'll play out.

For now, the sportsbooks are confident. But until these cases get dismissed definitively, every dollar you lose betting is theoretically recoverable under laws written before America existed.

Wild times in the gambling industry. Keep your betting receipts, degenerates. You might need them someday.