The corporate entity that licenses the likenesses of MLB players is suing four operators for the unauthorized use of photos in their betting and fantasy platforms.
Bet365 and DraftKings were sued Monday by MLB Players Inc. in the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. FanDuel and Underdog, meanwhile, were sued by the MLBPI in New York Supreme Court the same day.
The lawsuit stems around the use of player photos on the sportsbook apps, which the lawsuits say started in early 2024.
DraftKings and FanDuel had no comment on the lawsuit. Bet365 and Underdog did not respond to requests for comment.
No deal to use MLB player photos
None of the four operators have an agreement with the MLBPI to use the image and likeness on their platforms, the suits claim.
FanDuel is the only one allowed some use for promotional materials, but those are subject to limitations and MLBPI’s approval. Underdog, primarily a DFS operator who also runs a sportsbook in North Carolina, was also cited in the suit for using players’ names, images and likenesses on its social media accounts.
“Defendants’ use of player images within their sportsbook platforms is not merely informational—it is promotional,” both suits say.
Both go on to give examples of bets using players “valuable image,” using Pete Alonso of the Mets in the New York suit and Bryce Harper of the Phillies in the Pennsylvania suit.
NFL player photos not in use
Lawyers for the MLBPI also pointed out that these operators do not treat NFL players and bets the same way.
The filings include screenshots of prop bet pages from all four sportsbooks that only use team logos and names of NFL players, not their photos.
In a separate and unrelated lawsuit, the NFLPA is suing DraftKings for $65 million over an alleged breach of contract regarding a shuttered NFT product.
Why different courts for MLB players cases?
The complaints explain why the four companies were sued in two jurisdictions.
The New York Supreme Court holds jurisdiction in the FanDuel and Underdog case because both are “domestic corporations authorized to conduct business in the State of New York, and both companies maintain their respective principal places of business in the state.”
Bet365 and DraftKings were sued in Pennsylvania in part because a “substantial part of the events” took place in the court’s jurisdiction.
“This Court also has personal jurisdiction over DraftKings and bet365 because they regularly conduct and/or solicit business in, engage in other persistent courses of conduct in, and/or derive substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to persons in this District, including through the infringing activities challenged in this action.
“Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to MLBPI’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”
