Humphrey v. Viacom
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
2007 WL 1797648, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44679 (2007)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
ESPN, Vulcan Sports Media, Sportsline.com, and other companies (hosts) (defendants) hosted websites for fantasy-sports leagues in which participants managed virtual teams of players in a particular sport in competition against other participants based on how their respective players performed in various statistical categories. Participants paid fees to the hosts in exchange for team ownership, access to support services (such as real-time statistics), and data-management services allowing participants to acquire and manage players. A participant’s success in a fantasy competition ultimately depended on his skill in selecting and managing players during the season. Some winners received nominal prizes, such as t-shirts; some especially successful participants won bigger prizes, such as flat-screen televisions. The hosts announced the prizes before the beginning of each season, and the prizes did not depend on the number of participants or the amount of fees the hosts received. The hosts were indifferent to which participants won prizes. Charles Humphrey (plaintiff) sued the hosts, alleging that their fantasy-sports offerings constituted illegal gambling and seeking to recover their purported winnings under New Jersey’s qui tam gambling-loss recovery law. This law authorized a third party to recover gambling losses suffered by others in illegal gambling activities from gambling winners. The hosts moved to dismiss the complaint.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cavanaugh, 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.