Since its conception in the 1980s it seems like the masses have partaken in some form of what is modernly known as fantasy sports. Though its popularity cannot be questioned, its legality frequently is a target of dispute with most experts stating that it is not illegal. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in October of 2006, apart of the larger Safe Harbor Port Security Bill, stated that fantasy sports maintain legality as long as they meet a certain set of conditions. The conditions list as the following:
- All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of= the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.
- All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals in multiple real world sporting or other events.
- No winning outcome is based upon–
- on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or
- solely on any single performance of any individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.
And thus you have the legal powers that govern fantasy players across the United States. Yet four months before the UIGEA was passed one man, a lawyer named Charles E. Humphrey Jr., decided to test the laws and filed suit against 10 defendants that included Walt Disney Company, Viacom, and CBS Corp. Going head to head with such powerful firms, Humphrey Jr. cited in his complaint that the fantasy games he participated in were based upon chance rather than skill claiming that he should recover not only the money lost but also treble damages. Perhaps the most fascinating part of Humphrey Jr.’s case is that he cited laws deriving from the Statute of Queen Anne which allows the loser or any other party a unique remedy to recover gambling losses. Despite independence from Great Britain, many states within the U.S. still maintain and enforce some of the Statute rendering it somewhat relevant. However despite all of Humphrey’s legal research, a federal judge finally dismissed the complaint in June of 2007 claiming factual determination based largely on the plaintiff’s complaint allegations
Different plaintiffs have filed similar suits under the Statute of Queen Anne and unfortunately for them, they have been unsuccessful. There is a lot that goes behind the legality of fantasy sports and determining whether or not it is legal. That being said, the UIGEA has surely helped clean the discrepancies among the participants of fantasy sports including the winners and, more notably, the losers.