Seminole Tribe of Florida v. DraftKings, Inc., Jason Robins, and GUS III LLC · No. CACE-26-016435 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., Broward Cnty.) · Filed October 8, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida has filed a 72-page complaint in Broward County Circuit Court against DraftKings Inc., its CEO Jason Robins, and DraftKings subsidiary GUS III LLC, alleging that two DraftKings products — Pick6 and a sportsbook powered by “DraftKings Predictions” — constitute unlicensed sports betting in violation of Florida law and the Tribe’s exclusive rights under the state’s 2021 Gaming Compact.
What the Complaint Alleges
Florida’s 2021 Gaming Compact grants the Seminole Tribe the exclusive right to offer online sports betting statewide, in exchange for a guaranteed minimum revenue-share payment to the state of $2.5 billion over the compact’s first five years. The compact deems mobile wagering to be “exclusively conducted by the Tribe at the location of the servers that process such wagering activity on the Tribe’s Indian lands,” giving the Tribe statewide exclusivity for sports betting.
The complaint alleges DraftKings has operated two products in Florida that functionally replicate sports betting while avoiding that characterization: Pick6, launched in January 2026, which allows users to wager on whether an athlete’s statistical performance will be “more” or “less” than a set projection, combinable into parlays of up to six selections; and a sportsbook powered by “DraftKings Predictions,” integrated into DraftKings’ “Super App” (branded DraftKings Sports & Casino, launched June 2026). DraftKings has publicly characterized these as a peer-to-peer fantasy product and a prediction market, respectively, distinct from its licensed sportsbook, which remains unavailable in Florida.
The complaint quotes Robins directly on this point. In an August 2026 interview, Robins is quoted stating that it is “completely a myth” that prediction markets differ from a sportsbook, and that the products are “really no different” from one in substance. The Tribe cites these statements, along with side-by-side comparisons of Pick6 and its own compact-authorized Hard Rock Bet platform, in support of its position that the products are functionally equivalent to traditional sports wagering.
The Claims
The complaint asserts five counts:
- Count I — Action to Enjoin Illegal Gambling (§ 546.10(8)(a) and ch. 849, Fla. Stat.), against all defendants, invoking a statute that permits a tribal government party to a gaming compact to bring a direct action to enjoin unauthorized gambling.
- Count II — Florida RICO (§§ 895.01 et seq., Fla. Stat.), against Robins individually, alleging that DraftKings, Inc. and GUS III LLC each constitute an “enterprise” under the statute, that each wager accepted through the challenged products is a predicate act of racketeering, and that Robins personally conducts the affairs of both enterprises through a pattern of such conduct.
- Count III — Violation of FDUTPA (§§ 501.201 et seq., Fla. Stat.), against all defendants, alleging deceptive marketing of the products as lawful. The Tribe seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees on this count, but expressly disclaims actual damages.
- Count IV — Florida Common-Law Unfair Competition, against all defendants, alleging that the “peer-to-peer” and “prediction market” characterizations are likely to confuse consumers and divert business from the Tribe’s compact-authorized platform.
- Count V — Declaratory Judgment (§§ 86.011, 86.021, Fla. Stat.), seeking a declaration that the challenged products constitute illegal gambling under Chapter 849 and that DraftKings lacks legal authority to offer them in Florida. The Tribe requests an expedited hearing on this count under § 86.111, Fla. Stat.
A footnote states that the Tribe intends to seek leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages under § 768.72, Fla. Stat.; no such claim is currently pled.
The Tribe seeks injunctive relief barring the challenged products in Florida, disgorgement of profits derived from their operation, nominal damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. As of this writing, DraftKings has not filed a response.
Background
The complaint also references prior litigation over the compact. In West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia initially vacated the Department of the Interior’s approval of the compact’s mobile sports-betting provision in 2021, prompting the Tribe to suspend its online sports betting operations for roughly two years during the appeal. The D.C. Circuit reversed in 2023, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2024, leaving the compact’s sports-betting provision in effect.
The complaint further alleges that DraftKings funded a 2022 ballot initiative seeking to authorize additional sports-betting operators in Florida, which did not qualify for the ballot, and separately funded litigation brought by an entity called “Protect the Constitution LLC” in Leon County Circuit Court challenging the compact’s implementing legislation. That action was dismissed for lack of standing in October 2025; an amended complaint filed in September 2026 identifies DraftKings as the entity’s sole member.
Why It Matters
The case presents a question likely to recur as prediction-market and daily-fantasy products continue to expand nationally: whether a product’s classification under federal or company-chosen terminology controls its treatment under state gambling law, or whether courts will look to the product’s functional characteristics instead. The outcome may also bear on the scope of exclusivity provisions in tribal-state gaming compacts generally, and on the availability of a RICO remedy against individual corporate officers for conduct a plaintiff characterizes as ongoing unlicensed gambling operations.
The full complaint is available for download here. For ongoing commentary and analysis as this case develops, see Florida Reports’ coverage.