Underdog Sports, a prominent operator in the fantasy sports industry, has filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court in an effort to stop California Attorney General Rob Bonta from issuing a legal opinion that could declare digital fantasy sports platforms unlawful in the state. The move comes in anticipation of a widely expected opinion that, if published, could have far-reaching consequences for Underdog and similar platforms offering paid fantasy sports contests.

This legal challenge precedes the actual release of Bonta’s opinion, which the Attorney General’s office has suggested could arrive by July 3. According to Underdog’s filings, the anticipated guidance would adopt a broad interpretation, effectively deeming most forms of daily fantasy sports (DFS) as illegal under state law—a move that could destabilize the industry within California’s borders.

Core Legal Arguments Against the AG’s Opinion

Underdog’s legal team is requesting the court to issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a writ of mandate to prevent Bonta from releasing the opinion. According to documents published by The Closing Line, the company argues that the Attorney General lacks the statutory authority to issue such a ruling under California Government Code Section 12519. The law, they assert, limits the AG to issuing legal opinions that are based solely on questions of law and that must pertain to the duties of the official requesting the opinion.

Underdog emphasizes this distinction in its court filing:

“Absent relief from this Court, Attorney General Rob Bonta will issue an opinion later this week that will decimate fantasy sports in California. Attorney General Bonta should be enjoined from doing so, not because he is wrong in his views on the legality of fantasy sports — though he certainly is — but because by statute, the Attorney General can only issue opinions on questions of law and can only answer questions that relate to the duties of the official requesting the opinion. Neither is true here.”

The brief also challenges the validity of the original request that prompted the opinion. It notes that former State Senator Scott Wilk—who initiated the inquiry into the legality of DFS—has since left office due to term limits in 2024. As such, Underdog contends the request no longer holds legal weight, and issuing an opinion now would set a troubling precedent, allowing outgoing legislators to influence policy well after their tenure has ended.

Further, Underdog argues that the underlying question at hand ventures into prosecutorial territory, which falls within the domain of the executive branch, not the legislative. Because the question involves potential enforcement and fact-finding, Underdog asserts that it falls outside the purview of the AG’s advisory role.

Underdog: Business at Risk, Industry Impact Imminent

Underdog’s lawsuit claims that the forthcoming opinion poses an existential threat to its operations in California, which account for about 10% of its total revenue. In legal filings, the company cited conversations with representatives from Bonta’s office who allegedly stated that the office intends to use the opinion as leverage, threatening enforcement actions to pressure Underdog to cease offering its services in the state.

“The Attorney General’s office confirmed that after releasing the opinion, the goal would be to use the threat of an enforcement action—under the interpretation of California law that the Attorney General will impermissibly announce in the opinion—to pressure Underdog into agreeing to leave California entirely,” one filing revealed.

Underdog further referenced the legal fallout from a 2016 Texas opinion issued by Attorney General Ken Paxton, which led FanDuel to pull its DFS products from that state. While FanDuel eventually reentered the Texas market in 2018, Underdog’s brief points to this precedent as evidence of the damaging ripple effects such opinions can cause.

The company’s legal team argues that the opinion process should not be used as a mechanism for conducting investigations or fact-finding missions, something they believe Bonta’s office has done over the past 18 months. During that time, the AG’s office reportedly consulted various DFS operators, solicited industry input, and examined market practices—activities Underdog claims go beyond interpreting existing law.

Company Expresses Confidence in Legal Standing

Despite the high stakes, Underdog maintains its confidence in the legal standing of its fantasy sports offerings in California. A company spokesperson stated to The Closing Line:

“Any potential opinion is flawed because it has to rely on factual determinations the opinion process cannot and should not resolve, according to California law. The last two Attorneys General, Kamala Harris and Xavier Beccera, did not issue opinions, and Attorney General Bonta has been in office for more than four years without questioning fantasy sports games. We are optimistic the law will be followed and are confident in the legality of fantasy sports in California. If a negative opinion is issued, fantasy sports will prevail on the merits, no different than in New York and Illinois where courts rejected the similarly wrong opinions of those states’ attorneys general.”

At the center of the legal storm are Underdog’s fantasy pick’em contests, which require users to predict the statistical performances of players in real-world games. Though similar to parlay sports betting in format, Underdog contends these games rely on skill and are protected under existing fantasy sports legislation.

Outlook Ahead of July Deadline

According to attorney David Gringer, who represents Underdog, a representative from the AG’s office confirmed during a June 26 conversation that the opinion would be released no later than July 3 and would broadly declare digital fantasy sports illegal in California.

Gringer’s declaration also detailed how the AG’s office has taken cues from Texas’s legal model, using similar legal interpretations to force DFS operators out of state markets. The statement claims Bonta’s team is following a comparable strategy, which could result in Underdog—and potentially other operators—exiting the California market.

The next steps now rest with the Sacramento Superior Court, which must decide whether the Attorney General’s office should be allowed to proceed with issuing the opinion or whether Underdog’s arguments about legal overreach hold enough weight to delay or block its publication. As the July 3 deadline nears, the outcome of this dispute may have significant consequences for the future of paid fantasy sports in California—and possibly beyond.