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 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

