- Summits
- News
- Foundation
- Training & Advisory
- Poker Tour
- SiGMA Play
- SiGMA Play
- SiGMA Play
- About
The turbulent tale of Amit Patel, former finance manager of the Jacksonville Jaguars, recently took another dramatic twist. Patel is currently serving a six-and-a-half-year sentence for embezzling $22 million from the NFL team. He voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Boyd Gaming.
The lawsuit, which Patel filed in October 2024, accused several parties, including FanDuel’s parent company, Flutter Entertainment, of exploiting his gambling addiction. Yet, his legal skirmishes remain far from over. Patel alleged that Fox, Boyd Gaming, and others actively encouraged his gambling excesses.
Court documents filed last week in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York show that Patel withdrew his claims against Fox and Boyd Gaming without prejudice. However, this leaves the possibility of future legal action open. FanDuel’s parent company, Flutter Entertainment, denied the claims and recently moved to dismiss the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Nonetheless, Patel’s $250 million claim against FanDuel and Flutter persists, though it faces significant procedural hurdles.
Patel’s plummet into legal and financial ruin started with a gambling addiction that spiralled out of control. From 2017 to 2021, he misappropriated millions from the Jaguars, using the team’s virtual credit card to fund daily fantasy sports (DFS) bets on FanDuel.
The wagers Patel made weren’t small sums. He claims he gambled over $20 million, tempted by lucrative and seductive incentives from FanDuel. The platform allegedly lavished him with $1.1 million in betting credits, exclusive experiences, and constant communication from a personal VIP host.
The original lawsuit painted a gloomy picture. Patel Claims his VIP host, Brett Krause, contacted him up to 100 times a day, even when he hadn’t placed bets. These messages weren’t mere pleasantries but calls to action, encouraging relentless wagering.
Patel argued that FanDuel’s actions violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by knowingly exploiting him and encouraging his gambling habit. The crux of this is that Patel claimed FanDuel’s actions contributed directly to his misuse of Jaguar’s funds.
But Patel’s lavish spending wasn’t just limited to gambling. Court records revealed extravagant purchases, including a $95,000 Patek Philippe watch, a golf putter used by Tiger Woods in 1996 costing $47,113, and over $75,000 on private jet travel.
By March 2024, Patel’s double life unravelled. He was sentenced to prison, ordered to pay $21.1 million in restitution, and faced supervised release conditions requiring ongoing repayments to the Jaguars.
While Patel’s lawsuit against Fox and Boyd Gaming has ended, his claims against FanDuel and Flutter Entertainment hang in the balance. US District Judge Vernon S. Broderick gave Patel two options:
Failure to act could result in dismissal.
These challenges underline the difficulty plaintiffs face in holding gambling companies accountable for addiction-related harms.
Patel’s claims are part of a broader debate on the responsibilities of gambling operators. His case is not unique. Several similar lawsuits have attempted to hold gambling companies accountable for enabling compulsive gambling behaviours, though success has been elusive. Here, Flutter argues that Patel’s lawsuit is improper and based on his own illegal misconduct. They also say Patel’s guilty plea to wire fraud takes responsibility for his actions. Thus, Patel cannot hold Flutter and FanDuel responsible for his gambling losses. Flutter’s motion also verifies that VIP services are common in the entertainment industry and, therefore, cannot constitute misconduct.
Flutter recently slashed its 2024 U.S. revenue projections after a hot run of wins for favourite NFL teams during the late season led to a surge of favourable outcomes for bettors.
In 2008, a former New York attorney sued seven casinos, alleging they had a duty to prevent her gambling due to the fact they knew about her addiction.
The court decided that casinos hold no obligation to protect problem gamblers from themselves. Thus, the claim was dismissed. More recently, Patel’s own lawyer filed a 2024 lawsuit against Atlantic City casinos, arguing they failed to cut off access to compulsive gamblers. This case, too, was dismissed.
The legal landscape is fraught with challenges for these cases. Courts typically rule that gambling operators are not legally responsible for scrutinising gamblers’ spending habits. They say it isn’t the operator’s responsibility to curb or restrain addictive behaviour.
These precedents set a high bar for success in cases against companies like FanDuel. The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) also recently highlighted the need for regulatory oversight. CEO Andrew Rhodes admits that the UKGC is under the spotlight to address several pressing issues, one of which is to improve player protection measures.
This court case is similar to other recent cases. One example is Sam A. Antar’s suit against BetMGM. Antar, like Patel, alleged that a gambling company exploited his addiction through aggressive marketing and VIP incentives. Antar alleges BetMGM’s hosts encouraged him to continue gambling despite being aware of him being a problem gambler.
The courts dismissed Antar’s lawsuit in early 2024, and both sides played their final cards in December 2024. The case remains in the appeals process, while the current focus is whether state laws address the responsibilities of gambling companies.
Gambling affects sports in various ways, and other court cases highlight this. A gambling-related lawsuit in 2020 between Fenerbahçe Sports Club and the Turkish Football Federation over match-fixing is one example of how scandals like this can affect an operator’s finances.
The University of Toledo’s point-shaving scandal and the infamous Tim Donaghy NBA betting controversy underscore the integrity risks that can escalate when there are no checks on the gambling habits of customers.
FanDuel and Flutter argue that Patel’s claims lack standing. They also say the court has no personal jurisdiction over Flutter, as Patel lived in Florida while using the site. Furthermore, they assert that DFS operators are not bound by the federal Bank Secrecy Act’s anti-money laundering and KYC guidelines, even though the company voluntarily complies with these standards.
Patel’s case shines a spotlight on a crucial question. Where is the line for operators? Should they help problem gamblers help themselves? Gambling companies are keen to promote responsible gaming protocols and are under much scrutiny; thus, they must comply with increased regulation.
Cases like Patel’s show that a gap still exists between policy and practice in real-world situations. Patel’s claims that FanDuel disregarded its own controls to benefit from his addiction could lead to broader debate.
Courts, to date, are reluctant to impose liability. Legal rulings like Patel’s reflect the hesitancy of the judiciary to hold operators accountable. While the current legal climate favours gambling companies, it raises ethical concerns about their role in promoting addiction.
While Patel’s claim highlights the potential for exploitation, Flutter’s argument that VIP services are comparable to other entertainment rewards shows how difficult it will be to distinguish aggressive marketing from unethical conduct.
As Patel’s legal saga unfolds, its implications for the gambling industry remain uncertain. Will this case set a new precedent, or will it join the list of failed attempts to challenge gambling companies’ practices? For now, the dice are still rolling.
Ready to roll the dice? Whether you’re chasing high-stakes action, instant payouts, or unbeatable bonuses, SiGMA Play connects you to the best sports betting sites.