The PrizePicks lawsuit landscape has three main pieces a reader should know about: a finalized Kentucky class action settlement worth up to $1.75 million, a nearly $15 million penalty settlement with New York regulators, and active class action lawsuits filed in California in mid-2025. Each one turns on the same question — whether PrizePicks’ pick’em contests are legal fantasy sports or unlicensed sports betting — but only the Kentucky case is currently paying claimants.
The Kentucky Settlement Paying Claimants Now
The case is Tai Fox et al. v. SidePrize, LLC, filed in Henderson County Circuit Court (Case No. 24-CI-00788). It alleged that PrizePicks operated illegal gambling contests in Kentucky, and it settled with a fund of up to $1.75 million. The court granted final approval on August 6, 2025.
The class covers anyone in Kentucky who paid an entry fee or participated in a PrizePicks contest between September 1, 2018 and April 1, 2025 and ended up with a net loss. Eligibility was determined using billing addresses, IP addresses, or other account data provided by SidePrize.
Payouts are not a flat amount. They are calculated pro rata based on three things: the total entry fees the claimant paid during the class period, that person’s net losses, and the total number of valid claims submitted. Before payouts, the fund is reduced by attorneys’ fees capped at roughly $583,333, service awards of $5,000 each for the two class representatives, and administrative costs.
The deadline to file a claim or opt out was June 30, 2025, so new claims are no longer being accepted. Payments were expected to be issued within 120 days of the August 6 final approval date, by check, PayPal, or Venmo.
The New York $15 Million Settlement
New York’s action was regulatory rather than a consumer class action, so no individual payouts flowed to users. The New York State Gaming Commission concluded that PrizePicks had been offering contests in the state without authorization, treating them as proposition betting rather than fantasy sports. In October 2023, the Commission adopted Rule 5602.1(a)(4), which explicitly prohibited pick’em-style contests based on proposition betting.
On February 13, 2024, PrizePicks agreed to pay $14,969,688. The figure was based on revenue generated from New York users between June 2019 and December 2023, plus a per-day penalty for operating without a license. Payment was due by March 1, 2024, and PrizePicks stopped paid contests in New York on February 14, 2024.
PrizePicks then spent roughly a year and a half redesigning its product. It built a peer-to-peer model called “Arena,” where players compete against each other on comparative lineup scores rather than against the house. The Gaming Commission awarded PrizePicks an interactive fantasy sports operating license in October 2025, and the company relaunched in New York on February 4, 2026. The relaunched product excludes the old player-versus-house format, betting-style multipliers, and fixed-odds outcomes.
The Active California Class Actions
California is where the litigation is most active and where consumers may still be able to join a case.
On July 3, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a 33-page advisory opinion concluding that daily fantasy sports platforms are illegal under state law. The opinion found that DFS entry fees constitute “wagering on sports in violation of Penal Code section 337a” and that the prohibition applies regardless of where operators or their technology are physically located. It covers both pick’em and draft-style contests but excludes traditional season-long fantasy sports. The opinion is not binding law, but it gives local prosecutors a basis for enforcement. Governor Gavin Newsom disagreed with it publicly, saying he welcomed “a constructive path forward in collaboration with all stakeholders.” The Fantasy Sports and Gaming Association called it “out of step” with other jurisdictions. California tribal gaming interests supported it.
On the same day the opinion was released, class action lawsuits were filed in federal court against PrizePicks, FanDuel, DraftKings, and Underdog Fantasy. The PrizePicks case, Franks et al. v. SidePrize LLC (Case No. 3:25-cv-04916-CRB), was filed on June 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs Justin Franks and Jack Bacigalupi are represented by Almeida Law Group and Cutter Law, among other firms. The complaint alleges violations of the California Penal Code, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
A second California suit was filed by Weitz and Luxenberg in July 2025 alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraud. That complaint argues PrizePicks “intentionally misled consumers” by advertising its contests as legal in the state. The firm is accepting clients who used PrizePicks while physically in California at any time since July 2022.
No court has ruled on the merits of either California case in the available record. Many DFS operators, including PrizePicks, continued offering paid contests in California through mid-2025.
Why These Lawsuits Keep Being Filed
Every action against PrizePicks turns on the same question: are pick’em contests games of skill or sports wagers?
PrizePicks maintains they are skill-based. When New York granted its license, the company said that made New York the 16th jurisdiction to “formally ratify that PrizePicks’ contests can be offered as games of skill under its fantasy sports laws.” Chief Legal Officer Jason Barclay said the decision “underscores the idea that innovation in fantasy sports can thrive within a clear regulatory framework.”
Regulators and plaintiffs’ lawyers argue the opposite. New York’s Gaming Commission treated the original contests as proposition betting. California’s attorney general concluded DFS entry fees are wagers on sporting events. The class action complaints allege PrizePicks falsely represented its contests as legal skill-based activities when they were in fact illegal wagering.
Federal law does not resolve the question. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act carved out an exemption for fantasy sports, but whether pick’em contests fit that exemption is largely a matter of state interpretation. Some states explicitly permit DFS, others have banned pick’em contests, and many operate with no specific legislation on the subject.
Whether Your State Is Affected
As of 2026, PrizePicks offers its “Player Picks” daily fantasy product in 36 states plus the District of Columbia, according to the company’s website. The format varies:
- Standard pick’em is available in states including Georgia, Texas, California, and Illinois, though the legal basis varies and some of these states lack specific DFS legislation.
- The peer-to-peer Arena format only is offered in Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
- Free-to-play only applies in Colorado and Michigan, and applied in New York before the 2026 relaunch. Colorado’s Division of Gaming issued rules in January 2024 requiring DFS to be peer-to-peer, effectively banning the player-versus-house model.
- PrizePicks is unavailable in states including Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Iowa, and Connecticut. Washington classifies DFS as illegal sports wagering. Nevada permits DFS in theory but requires a gaming license operators have not obtained.
By August 2025, PrizePicks confirmed its entire U.S. operation had transitioned to a peer-to-peer model, moving away from the player-versus-house structure that drew the regulatory actions.
The Arbitration Clause in Your User Agreement
PrizePicks’ terms of service include a mandatory binding arbitration clause and a class action waiver, standard provisions across the DFS industry. Users can opt out of these provisions, and the company cannot unilaterally modify the arbitration and class waiver sections. Whether these clauses will limit the scope of the California and other class actions is an open question; no court rulings on their enforceability in the PrizePicks context have been reported. If you are considering joining a class action, this clause is the first thing a lawyer will ask you about.