ARTICLE
20 July 2017

FTC Temporarily Halts Proposed DraftKings-FanDuel Merger

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The FTC alleges that the merger would create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act in the purported DFS market.
United States Antitrust/Competition Law
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

On June 20, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order blocking the daily fantasy sports (DFS) companies DraftKings and FanDuel from consummating their proposed merger until the Court rules on a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC alleges that the merger would create a monopoly in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act in the purported DFS market. The TRO does not otherwise prevent DraftKings and FanDuel from individually continuing to host DFS competitions.

The preliminary injunction—and the FTC's administrative complaint—largely turn on the question of whether DFS leagues are part of the same market as traditional fantasy sports leagues, or whether DFS leagues constitute a separate and distinct market. DraftKings and FanDuel constitute less than 5% of the traditional fantasy sports leagues, but over 95% of the daily fantasy sports (DFS) market. The FTC spends a significant portion of its complaint arguing that DFS leagues differ substantially from traditional fantasy sports leagues, most notably in their highly accelerated schedule—many DFS competitions conclude in a single day, rather than a full sports season—and the pricing mechanics of participating in competitions. Since DFS leagues rose to prominence in the past few years, the FTC's proceeding presents a case of first impression for antitrust enforcement in the fantasy sports industry.

The FTC's ongoing litigation with DraftKings and FanDuel suggests that the DFS industry has gained a measure of legitimacy. When it first emerged, the DFS industry faced repeated challenges from the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Attorneys General of New York, Texas, Mississippi, and Hawaii, who suggested that DFS may constitute illegal gambling. In contrast, the FTC's lawsuit implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of daily fantasy sports betting by recognizing the DFS industry as a legitimate market that can be regulated under US antitrust and competition laws. Accordingly, regardless of whether DraftKings and FanDuel prevail in this particular instance, the FTC's suit suggests that the DFS industry may be here to stay.

*Christian Chessman is a summer associate in Sheppard Mullin's San Francisco office and a law student at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More