Dew-Becker v. Wu
Illinois Supreme Court
178 N.E.3d 1034, 2020 WL 1880804 (2020)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Colin Dew-Becker (plaintiff) lost $100 to Andrew Wu (defendant) in a daily fantasy-sports (DFS) contest on the website FanDuel.com. Dew-Becker then sued Wu in Illinois state court, alleging that the DFS contest constituted illegal gambling under Illinois law. Dew-Becker sought to recover his lost $100 under Illinois Criminal Code § 28-8(a), which allowed the loser of an illegal bet to seek recovery from the winner. At a bench trial, Dew-Becker testified that he and Wu had paid $109 each to participate in a head-to-head DFS contest on FanDuel. Dew-Becker and Wu had each created a fantasy roster of nine National Basketball Association (NBA) players and earned points based on their players’ performances in real-world NBA games on a given day. Wu had outscored Dew-Becker and, as the winner, had received $200 (i.e., both participants’ entry fees, less $18 retained by FanDuel). The trial court entered judgment for Wu, and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court explained that § 28-8(a) allowed recovery of gambling losses only if there was a direct connection between the people involved in the wager. The court concluded that because of FanDuel’s involvement as a third-party intermediary, there was no direct connection between Dew-Becker and Wu. Dew-Becker appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burke, C.J.)
Dissent (Karmeier, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.