ReadWriteWeb
A federal judge in Washington DC has decided to temporarily stop a lawsuit filed by three California tribes over a controversial casino proposal tied to the Koi Nation of Northern California. The pause, ordered March 27 by US District Judge Carl J. Nichols, puts the case on hold while similar legal fights play out in another court.
The tribes behind the lawsuit are described as three "Southern Pomo Indian tribes with strong historical connections to Sonoma County, California." They challenged how the Interior Department and the Bureau of Indian Affairs handled the approval process, arguing the government rushed to take land into trust for the casino project.
The Southern Pomo Indian tribe is a key part of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, which already operates a major casino nearby and has been among those pushing back against the Koi Nation's plans as construction edges closer.
Why the judge paused the Northern California casino tribal case
Nichols said it made more sense to wait, pointing to ongoing appeals in related cases in Northern California that could directly shape what happens next. One of those cases already delivered a significant setback for the federal government, when a judge vacated the Interior Department's approval of the project.
In light of that ruling, the tribes indicated they may drop their lawsuit altogether if the appeals process leaves that decision intact.
The federal government had argued against the delay, saying the request came too early and that a California court should decide whether to pause the case. Nichols disagreed, concluding that waiting would avoid duplicating legal work and potentially conflicting outcomes.
He pointed out that the Ninth Circuit's upcoming decisions could influence nearly every major issue in the case, from whether it belongs in California to how the legal claims should ultimately be resolved. He also noted the government itself had recently asked for, and received, a similar pause in a related California case.
Nichols echoed that court's reasoning, writing that "a stay would significantly advance the orderly course of justice."
The dispute unfolds alongside political scrutiny over casino expansion in California. In July 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom faced criticism tied to tribal gaming decisions and campaign donations.
For now, the case remains frozen. Both sides must file joint updates every 90 days and outline next steps once the Ninth Circuit finishes weighing the related appeals. Until then, the legal fight over the casino project is effectively on hold.
Featured image: Koi Nation / Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
The post Federal judge pauses tribal lawsuit over disputed Northern California casino project appeared first on ReadWrite.
Regulators in Pennsylvania have signed off on a settlement with BetMGM after uncovering a series of fraud-related failures tied to how the company verified its customers. The agreement, approved March 25, comes with financial penalties and the removal of credit cards from the BetMGM platform starting March 31.
The decision follows a detailed review of multiple cases where fraudulent users were able to open accounts, move money, and withdraw funds using stolen or fabricated identities. State officials said those incidents exposed gaps in the company's safeguards, particularly around its Know Your Customer processes.
Fraud cases and regulatory findings
Investigators described a pattern of control failures that stretched across multiple years. According to Senior Enforcement Counsel John Crohe, the case involved "four incidents of interactive gaming know your customer requirement violations" that allowed fraudulent behavior to persist.
One scheme stood out because of its scale and duration. Crohe said that between late 2021 and early 2024, "a fraud ring created 1,567 accounts on the BetMGM interactive gaming platform." From there, the operation expanded quickly. Of those accounts, "1,173 made deposits totaling $13,761 using stolen or fraudulent payment devices," while "481 withdrawals totaling [approximately $28,680.48] were made to bank accounts controlled by the perpetrators."
Across all four cases, regulators said thousands of accounts were created and used to move money through the system. Their conclusion was that BetMGM "failed to have sufficient procedures to prevent the fraudulent behavior," with particular concern focused on identity verification gaps.
"Insufficient 'know your customer' protocols allowed for the creation, access, and use of multiple accounts by individuals," Crohe said, pointing to repeated use of stolen personal data and fake payment methods.
To resolve the case, BetMGM agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty along with a $2,500 administrative fee. Regulators indicated that the monetary penalty was only part of the response, with operational changes viewed as equally important.
BetMGM response to fraud cases as it confirms banning credit cards
Company representatives stressed that fraud prevention is an ongoing challenge rather than a problem that can be fully eliminated. Speaking before the board, Senior Legal Counsel Joseph Caputi said, "BetMGM takes compliance extremely seriously." He added, "Compliance has a seat at the executive table and every department at BetMGM has compliance as part of its core function."
Caputi pointed to the increasing sophistication of fraud schemes as a key difficulty for operators. "There's no system that can fully eliminate the threat of fraud… but BetMGM has committed significant investment into our fraud tools, policies, and fraud prevention aspects to address and to stay ahead of these sophisticated bad actors," he said.
He also made clear the company is continuing to refine its systems rather than treating compliance as a finished task. "We're comfortable now, but we are not sitting and waiting. We're actively working to continue to improve. It's an ongoing, everyday matter."
The Pennsylvania case comes as BetMGM faces scrutiny in other states as well. In Massachusetts, regulators have been examining allegations that the company sent marketing emails that may have reached underage individuals. The inquiry raised additional questions about how effectively operators screen users, not just for fraud risk but also for age compliance and marketing practices.
Operators are increasingly expected to show that their systems can prevent problems before they happen, rather than simply respond after the fact.
Credit cards and industry shift
One of the outcomes from the Pennsylvania proceedings is BetMGM's decision to move away from credit cards. During the hearing, a company representative stated: "As of March 31, we will no longer be allowing credit cards—new credit cards—to be added to the accounts for individuals." The representative added, "It is a phasing out of credit card usage on the BetMGM platforms."
There have been wider concerns among regulators about credit-based gambling, which is often linked to higher fraud exposure and potential consumer harm. Limiting access to borrowed funds is seen as one way to reduce both financial risk and opportunities for abuse.
BetMGM is not alone in making that move. Earlier this year, FanDuel said it would halt credit card deposits nationwide beginning March 2. The parallel decisions suggest companies are responding to a wider regulatory climate that favors tighter restrictions on payment methods.
Board members in Pennsylvania also questioned BetMGM about how it handles underage gambling and account security. Rhea Loney, the company's Chief Compliance Officer, said internal teams are focused on identifying and preventing those risks. "We take underage very seriously at BetMGM," she said. "We're constantly reviewing the data and analyzing it to determine how we can ensure that does not occur."
She pointed to technology as a key part of that effort, explaining that the company is "Using AI to ensure that individuals with fake IDs are caught early [and] detected early."
Regulators stressed that underage gambling, whether done directly or through another person's account, is treated as fraud. BetMGM agreed with that view, stating: "Absolutely. Yes, we consider that fraud."
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board approved the agreement unanimously, though some details remain confidential due to their sensitive nature, but officials said the public record reflects a consistent focus on consumer protection and stronger compliance.
Featured image: Sarah Stierch via WikiCommons / CC BY 4.0
The post BetMGM phases out credit cards after fraud probe in Pennsylvania state appeared first on ReadWrite.
A federal judge has refused to immediately stop DraftKings from using the NCAA's well-known basketball tournament branding, even while signaling the league is likely to win key parts of its lawsuit.
In a March 26 order, the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana said the NCAA satisfied most of the legal test for a temporary restraining order. But the request ultimately failed on urgency. As the court put it, "the NCAA has made the requisite showing that three of the four elements necessary for a TRO exists, but… they have not shown irreparable harm."
Court finds likely DraftKings trademark violation against NCAA
The case, filed earlier this month, accuses DraftKings of trademark infringement, false association, and dilution tied to its use of phrases like "March Madness," "Final Four," and "Elite Eight" across its sportsbook.
The judge made clear the claims are still substantial. In the ruling, the court said DraftKings' wording closely tracks the NCAA's protected marks and could mislead users. "The challenged terms are clearly similar to the NCAA Basketball Marks," the judge wrote, pushing back on DraftKings' argument that the phrases are simply descriptive.
The order also stressed that DraftKings has other options. "DraftKings need not refer to 'March Madness' or 'Final Four'… [and] can easily refer to the Tournaments by their common names," the judge stated.
Looking at the wider legal test, the court found the balance strongly favored the NCAA. It concluded that "the seven factors clearly favor the NCAA and indicate a likelihood of confusion."
The judge also sided with the NCAA on dilution concerns. The ruling warned that linking the NCAA brand to gambling platforms could damage its image, noting consumers "are likely to associate the NCAA with sports betting," despite the organization's long-standing opposition to wagering tied to college sports.
Still, timing proved decisive. Evidence showed DraftKings had used similar language for years, including "March Madness" as far back as 2021. The court said it was "difficult… to credit the claim" that the NCAA didn't know, given how aggressively it typically polices its trademarks.
Consequently, the delay undercut the NCAA's argument that immediate action was necessary. Even short gaps can weaken claims of urgent harm, the court noted, and waiting years made the emergency request hard to justify.
The dispute comes as the NCAA ramps up efforts to control how its trademarks appear in the sports betting and prediction markets space. The organization has also taken action against companies like Kalshi over tournament-related event contracts, arguing that such uses risk blurring its brand and associating it too closely with gambling products.
For now, DraftKings can keep using the contested terms. But the case is far from over, and the court made clear the NCAA could still win longer-term restrictions as the lawsuit moves forward.
Featured image: DraftKings / NCAA
The post Judge denies NCAA bid to block DraftKings March Madness trademarks use appeared first on ReadWrite.
Flutter Entertainment is moving to close down FanDuel TV and discontinue its FanDuel Picks product. A company spokesperson confirmed details to ReadWrite, previously reported by the Paulick Report, saying the television network will be phased out gradually, with more than 100 roles expected to be eliminated by the end of 2027. Rather than an abrupt shutdown, the network will wind down in stages as Flutter exits the TV business.
The decision reflects a general reset inside FanDuel's US operations. The company seems to be tightening its focus on its core betting and gaming offerings, stepping away from media ventures and experimental products that don't directly drive wagering revenue.
FanDuel TV and Picks shutdown confirmed
Staff working across production and operational roles tied to FanDuel TV will be affected as the network scales back. The confirmed report indicates job reductions will exceed 100 positions by the time the transition wraps up in 2027.
FanDuel TV built much of its identity around horse racing coverage and betting-related programming. It also brought in industry figures to strengthen that offering, including the recent addition of jockey Joe Talamo as a racing analyst. His hiring showed the network's apparent continued investment in racing content, making the decision to wind things down a notable reversal.
At the same time, FanDuel is also pulling the plug on FanDuel Picks, its free-to-play product built around prediction-style contests. The platform originally launched as a peer-to-peer fantasy-style experience designed to boost user engagement without requiring real-money wagers.
While no additional layoffs have been tied directly to that move, it still points to a retreat from side projects that sit outside FanDuel's main betting ecosystem. In its official announcement, FanDuel said it would "reallocate resources to other areas of our business where we see the greatest opportunity to serve our customers."
The company indicated that existing contests would be wound down in an orderly way until April 23, with users given time to complete active entries and withdraw any remaining balances where applicable by May 29, 2026.
The timeline for closing FanDuel TV stretches over several years. However, for employees and partners, the extended phaseout may create a prolonged period of uncertainty as the network gradually shrinks. For users, the end of FanDuel Picks will likely arrive sooner, removing one of the brand's free engagement tools.
Featured image: FanDuel
The post FanDuel to shutter TV network and Picks platform amid strategy shift appeared first on ReadWrite.
Washington's lawsuit against prediction market platform Kalshi changed direction the same day it was filed, after the company moved the case from state court into federal court. This would change where the case will be heard and centers the dispute on federal law.
The complaint, filed in King County Superior Court by Attorney General Nick Brown and reviewed by ReadWrite, alleges that Kalshi operates an illegal online gambling platform. State lawyers say the company offers "a continuous and captivating stream of opportunities to bet money online on thousands of topics," including sports, elections, public statements, and health-related metrics.
According to the filing, these activities meet Washington's legal definition of gambling, which includes risking money on uncertain outcomes with the expectation of a payout. The state also argues the platform is available to users across Washington despite restrictions on most forms of internet gambling. The lawsuit follows state action targeting prediction markets, including a ban affecting similar services.
Kalshi responded by filing a notice of removal, transferring the case to federal court. In it, the company states it operates "a federally regulated derivatives exchange" where users trade event-based contracts rather than place bets.
The company says its platform is overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and falls under "exclusive federal jurisdiction." It argues the case requires interpretation of federal statutes, including the Commodity Exchange Act, and therefore belongs in federal court.
Disputes involving Kalshi have emerged in several states, with different outcomes. In Massachusetts, regulators obtained an injunction restricting parts of the company's operations. In Michigan, the attorney general filed a lawsuit alleging that certain sports-related contracts constitute unlicensed betting activity. In Arizona, a federal judge denied Kalshi's emergency request in a criminal-related matter.
Kalshi's filing references these cases and notes that similar issues are being considered in multiple federal appeals courts. The company argues that the differing rulings show an unresolved legal question involving federal and state authority.
By removing the case, Kalshi has not yet addressed the allegations in Washington's complaint. The immediate issue before the court will be whether the case proceeds in federal court and how federal law applies.
The company also stated that it has not been formally served with the complaint and has not waived any defenses.
Featured image: Kalshi / Canva
The post Kalshi moves Washington lawsuit to federal court amid regulatory dispute appeared first on ReadWrite.