MLB Players Union fights DraftKings’ appeal bid in high-stakes NIL lawsuit
The legal fight between the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and DraftKings over the unauthorised use of players’ names, images, and likenesses (NIL) has taken a new turn, with the union pushing back hard against the sportsbook’s attempt to appeal a recent court ruling.
On 17 April 2025, the MLBPA filed a motion in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, urging the court to reject DraftKings’ request for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is a rare legal mechanism that allows mid-case appeals before a final verdict. The union stated that the appeal is “unfounded and premature,” lacking the necessary legal grounds and doing little more than attempting to delay the proceedings.
“Apparently hoping that if it (DraftKings) throws enough against the wall, something will stick, DraftKings seeks interlocutory review of four separate questions supposedly warranting such extraordinary treatment,” the union stated, according to court documents.
Lawsuit so far
The case, filed in September 2024, accuses DraftKings of misusing MLB players’ NILs in advertisements and on its sportsbook platform without the players’ or the union’s consent. The original complaint also included bet365, which remains a co-defendant, while FanDuel was dropped from the case after reaching a confidential settlement and signing a licensing agreement in November 2024. Underdog Fantasy is also facing similar claims in a separate legal action.
In March 2025, Judge Karen Marston denied DraftKings’ motion to dismiss the case, stating that the union had presented plausible allegations under Pennsylvania’s right-of-publicity laws. The judge acknowledged the legal complexities surrounding sports betting and player publicity rights, particularly when marketing materials blend factual content with promotional intent.
“Baseball may still be America’s favourite pastime, but sports gambling has become a serious threat to baseball’s crown,” Marston wrote in her ruling. “Here, the two collide in a case where the law is as uncertain as a Phillies playoff run.”
Judge Marston added that while some DraftKings content may resemble news reporting, the blending of player images with commercial messaging complicates the matter. This nuance undermined the sportsbook’s First Amendment defence, which argued the content was protected as a form of public interest reporting.
The core allegations against DraftKings include:
- Unauthorised commercial use of player NILs violates Pennsylvania’s right-of-publicity laws.
- Unjust enrichment, asserting that DraftKings profited by using players’ identities without compensation.
- Misappropriation, though a redundant aspect of that claim, was dismissed as already covered under publicity law.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the sports betting and fantasy sports industries, particularly as legal sports gambling continues expanding across the United States.
