Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 139

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KRISTOPHER R. OLSON, CHRISTOPHER
LOPEZ, WARREN BARBER,
CHRISTOPHER CLIFFORD, and ERIK
LIPTAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

Case No. 1:20-CV-00632-JSR
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff
v.
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL; MLB
ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P.; HOUSTON
ASTROS, LLC; and BOSTON RED SOX
BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.,
Defendants
Plaintiffs Kristopher R. Olson, Christopher Lopez, Warren Barber, Christopher Clifford,
and Erik Liptak bring this action, individually and as a class action on behalf of all others
similarly situated, to recover damages for defendants’ wrongful promotion of fantasy baseball
wagering competitions that they caused to be, and knew or should have known were, corrupt and
dishonest.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

For decades in the Twentieth Century and into this Century, defendant Major

League Baseball (“MLB”) stridently opposed the legalization of sports gambling in this country
and, in particular, legalization of gambling on baseball. MLB argued that the honesty and
integrity of major league baseball would be jeopardized if gambling on baseball was permitted.
MLB repeatedly assured its fans that it was protecting the integrity of the game; and to
emphasize its commitment to the public of ensuring that baseball remained free of gamblingrelated taint or corruption, MLB imposed lifetime bans on star players who became involved

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 139

with gambling – Shoeless Joe Jackson in 1921, Pete Rose in 1989. As MLB Commissioner
Robert D. Manfred, Jr. stated in January 2016 when he refused to lift the lifetime ban against
Rose, “[T]here’s a need to never lose sight that your foremost responsibility is to protect the
integrity of the play of the game on the field.”1
2.

MLB reiterated this commitment after the United States Supreme Court

invalidated federal prohibitions on state legalization of sports gambling in 2018, lobbying state
legislatures considering whether to legalize sports gambling for “integrity fees” to compensate it
for the cost of maintaining the honesty of the game in the face of the dangers that legalized sports
gambling posed to the integrity of baseball. As Manfred has repeatedly stated, “Our most
important priority is protecting the integrity of our games.” 2
3.

Defendant MLB’s attitude toward wagering on baseball changed – secretly in

2013 and then publicly in 2015 – as MLB recognized and sought to take advantage of the
enormous popularity and lucrative financial opportunities presented by fantasy sports wagering
competitions. Investing in fantasy baseball was a win-win proposition for MLB. Not only
would it be able to benefit financially by sharing in the multi-million dollars of entry fees fantasy
baseball contestants paid their fantasy sports operator, but fan interest in the game would be
heightened by fan participation in fantasy baseball wagering, resulting in greater attendance,
higher advertising and broadcasting revenues, and additional sales of MLB merchandise and

1

Jerry Crasnick, Q&A: Rob Manfred reflects on his 1-year anniversary as MLB commissioner, ESPN (Jan. 25,
2016), https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/14636894/qa-rob-manfred-one-year-mlb-commissioner (accessed Feb.
13, 2020).
2
Chandler Rome, Major League Baseball re-examining its stance on gambling, HOUSTON CHRONICLE (May 14,
2018), https://www.chron.com/sports/astros/article/Major-League-Baseball-reexamining-stance-gambling12913043.php (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).

2

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 139

paraphernalia. As Manfred stated on behalf of MLB in October 2015, “[F]antasy [baseball] is an
important source of fan engagement and has been for a long time.” 3
4.

In 2013, MLB, through its affiliated entity, defendant MLB Advanced Media,

L.P. (“MLBAM”), made a confidential investment in daily fantasy sport operator DraftKings
Inc. (“DraftKings”). Two years later, MLB added to its original undisclosed investment with a
greater, now-public, equity investment in DraftKings. As MLB stated at the time, its investment
would enable it “to reap meaningful benefit from the rise of daily fantasy.” 4
5.

To that end, MLB did not simply become a passive investor in DraftKings.

Rather, it entered into a comprehensive league partnership agreement with DraftKings, 5 and,
acting as DraftKings’ “partner,”6 MLB has participated, from at least 2015 to date, in actively
promoting and marketing DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions – featuring DraftKings’
fantasy baseball contests across MLB’s media properties, granting DraftKings broad promotional
and advertising rights, including use of MLB league and team logos, designating DraftKings as
MLB’s “Official Daily Fantasy Game,” and affording DraftKings the exclusive right to sign
sponsorship agreements with MLB individual member Clubs. 7 And, in return as DraftKings’
partner, MLB (directly and through MLBAM) has received a share of the multi-million dollar

3

Mark Feinsand, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred defendants DraftKings partnership, says fantasy sprots ‘not
gambling’, N.Y. DAILY NEWS (Oct. 26, 2015), https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/fantasy-sports-notgambling-mlb-commissioner-manfred-article-1.2412347 (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
4
Eric Fisher, A look into DraftKings’ MLB Deal, SPORTS BUSINESS JOURNAL (Apr. 20, 2015),
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/04/20/Media/DraftKings-MLB.aspx (accessed Jan. 22,
2020).
5
Id.
6
Press Release, DraftKings Becomes the Official Daily Fantasy Game of Major League Baseball, BUSINESSWIRE
(Apr. 2, 2015), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150402006154/en/DraftKings-Official-Daily-FantasyGame-Major-League (accessed Jan. 22, 2020).
7
See Dustin Gouker, Play Ball: DraftKings Announces Deals with 27 Major League Baseball Teams, LEGAL
SPORTS REPORT (July 31, 2015), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/2827/draftkings-mlb-team-deals/ (accessed Jan.
22, 2020) (“DraftKings’ existing partnership with Major League Baseball included a provision that it is the only
DFS site that can sign deals with individual teams.”).

3

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 139

fees earned from fantasy baseball contestants, an increase in the value of its equity investment in
DraftKings (which MLB redeemed in 2019), as well as substantial other financial benefits.
6.

Defendant MLB is comprised of baseball’s 30 Major League Clubs, led by

MLB’s Office of the Commissioner. As anticipated in MLB’s 2015 partnership agreement with
DraftKings, MLB’s individual member Clubs have entered into lucrative individual agreements
with DraftKings to promote DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests. In 2015, pursuant to MLB’s
league partnership agreement with DraftKings and MLB individual member team agreements
with DraftKings, DraftKings’ signage began being featured in 27 of MLB’s 30 stadiums, and
MLB Clubs engaged in co-branding promotions with DraftKings, including “in-stadium
experiences” for DraftKings’ contestants. In particular, as relates to this lawsuit, two of MLB’s
constituent member Clubs – the Houston Astros, LLC (the “Houston Astros” or the “Astros”)
and the Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. (the “Boston Red Sox” or the “Red Sox”) – entered
into agreements with DraftKings and have, throughout the period relevant to the claims against
them in this lawsuit, actively promoted, marketed and featured DraftKings’ fantasy baseball
competitions to their fanbases. The Astros and the Red Sox have financially benefited from their
relationship with DraftKings, both through MLB’s agreements and through their individual
agreements with DraftKings.
7.

Through their relationship with DraftKings, MLB and its constituent Clubs,

including the Astros and Red Sox, have, in the course of promoting and helping to market
DraftKings’ fantasy offerings, encouraged their fans to take a financial stake in DraftKings’
fantasy baseball wagering competitions by engaging in what the fantasy sport world defines as a
“game of skill” – wagering on the performance of MLB’s players through DraftKings’ fantasy

4

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 139

baseball contests. MLB has enthusiastically embraced DraftKings’ slogan that “Life is more fun
with skin in the game.”8
8.

Concurrent with its support and partnership with DraftKings, MLB recognized –

and publicly addressed – the importance of safeguarding the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’
fantasy baseball competitions it was promoting to its fans. Manfred – acting on behalf of MLB
and its constituent Clubs, and as the duly authorized agent and spokesperson for MLB’s Major
League Clubs, including the Astros and Red Sox, stated in October 2015 in a radio interview, “I
think the biggest concern is the one that attracted the most publicity. You want to make sure that
the fantasy organizations have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that things are fair, that
there’s not an inappropriate use of information and that fans who engage on these platforms have
an opportunity to win.”9
9.

And MLB’s fans – believing the fantasy contests to be honest – have engaged in

DraftKings’ games of skill to the tune of millions of dollars in daily fantasy sports baseball
contest fees, to DraftKings’, MLB’s, and MLB’s member Clubs’ enormous financial benefit.
10.

What MLB’s fans did not know was that MLB’s and its member Clubs’

commitment to ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball had also changed,
substantially undermining and compromising the fairness not only of MLB team vs. team
competitions, but DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests as well. While Manfred, speaking on
behalf of MLB and its constituent Clubs, repeatedly represented that MLB was affirmatively
acting to maintain the integrity of the game of baseball, and while MLB and its member Clubs,
8

See, e.g. DraftKings Expands Partnership with Major League Baseball to Become an Authorized Gaming
Operator, DRAFTKINGS (July 25, 2019), https://about.draftkings.com/2019/07/25/draftkings-expands-partnershipwith-major-league-baseball-to-become-an-authorized-gaming-operator/ (accessed Jan. 22, 2020)(“DraftKings is a
global sports technology and entertainment company that believes life is more fun with skin in the game.)(emphasis
added).
9
Darren Rovell, Commissioners say daily fantasy not akin to gambling, but needs regulation, ABC NEWS (Oct. 27,
2015), https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/commissioners-daily-fantasy-akin-gambling-regulation/story?id=34764018
(accessed Feb. 13, 2020).

5

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 139

including the Astros and the Red Sox, were actively inducing their fans to enter into fantasy
baseball wagers based on the individual statistical performance of MLB players, MLB’s member
Clubs secretly engaged in corrupt and fraudulent conduct, in knowing and intentional violation
of MLB’s Official Rules and regulations, that produced player statistics distorted by cheating and
deprived their fans of an honest fantasy baseball competition. The corrupt conduct of at least two
of those Clubs – the Astros and the Red Sox – has now been publicly exposed, revealing that, at
the very least, DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests from the beginning of the 2017 baseball
season through the 2019 season were tainted by cheating and compromised, at the expense of
DraftKings’ contestants.
11.

Throughout this period, Manfred and all of MLB’s member Clubs were well

aware that MLB member Clubs were engaging in corrupt and fraudulent conduct that rendered
player performance statistics dishonest and undermined the validity of wagers on DraftKings’
fantasy baseball contests. In particular, the fraudulent conduct of the Astros was an “open
secret” among MLB league executives, scouts and players. 10 Despite its members’ (and the
Office of the Commissioner’s) knowledge of such misconduct, MLB intentionally failed to take
appropriate action to prevent the Astros’ misconduct. MLB failed to properly investigate, deter,
remedy or disclose its members’ misconduct and purposefully continued to encourage fan
participation in what it knew to be corrupted fantasy baseball competitions. And, even after the
misconduct by the Astros and the Red Sox was exposed, Manfred – acting on behalf of MLB and
its member Clubs – intentionally minimized and misrepresented the extent of the fraudulent
10

See Barry Svrluga and Dave Shienin, The world just learned of the Astros’ cheating. Inside baseball, it was an
open secret., THE WASHINGTON POST (Feb. 11, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/mlb/astros-cheatingopen-secret/2020/02/11/1830154c-4c41-11ea-9b5c-eac5b16dafaa_story.html (accessed Feb. 13, 2020)(“According
to people at all levels through [baseball] – players, clubhouse staff, scouts and executives – the idea that the Astros
employed nefarious methods was an open secret. ‘The whole industry knows they’ve been cheating their asses off
for three or four years,’ said an executive from a team that faced the Astros in the playoffs during that span.
‘Everybody knew it.’”).

6

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 139

conduct, falsely asserting the Astros’ violation of MLB’s rules was “player-driven,” when he
knew that the misconduct had been perpetrated by and with the approval of Astros’ management.
12.

And MLB’s member Clubs – specifically, the Astros and Red Sox – were well

aware of their cheating, which was perpetrated with the direct knowledge (or, at best, willful
blindness) of team officials. MLB’s Clubs ratified and approved Manfred’s knowing failure to
take action to stop, deter and disclose the member team misconduct described in this Complaint.
And Manfred and MLB’s Clubs knew that Manfred’s continuing statements to the public and to
state governments promising to maintain the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball were
false – because MLB did not want to suffer the public relations disaster that disclosing and
remedying MLB team and player fraudulent conduct would engender.
13.

Plaintiffs Olson, Lopez, Barber, Clifford, and Liptak – like the hundreds of

thousands and likely millions of other similarly-situated DraftKings’ contestants – were victims
of this wrongful conduct by MLB and its corrupt member Clubs. Believing Major League
Baseball games to be honestly conducted, plaintiffs and their fellow DraftKings’ contestants
made wagers on DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests that they thought were based on the
honest performance of MLB’s players, when instead the contests were based on the cheating by
MLB’s teams and their players that MLB chose to turn a blind to and knowingly failed to
prevent or disclose. Neither plaintiffs, nor any other DraftKings’ contestants would have
wagered on daily fantasy baseball contests if they had known that the players’ performance
statistics on which their wagers were based were not honest.

7

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 139

14.

Plaintiffs now bring this action, on their own behalf and on behalf of their fellow

DraftKings’ contestants, to recover the amounts they wagered in these corrupt fantasy baseball
competitions, including all fees paid to DraftKings, as well as for statutory and punitive
damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such other relief as warranted by applicable law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)

because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and
costs, there are more than 100 putative class members as defined below, and minimal diversity
exists because a majority of putative class members are citizens of a state different than
Defendants.
16.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in
this District and because Defendants reside in and are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction
in this District in that they either have their principal places of business in this District or transact
substantial business in this District on an ongoing basis and are subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to this action.
PARTIES
A.

Plaintiff

17.

Plaintiff Kristopher R. Olson is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

18.

Plaintiff Christopher Lopez is a citizen of the State of California.

19.

Plaintiff Warren Barber is a citizen of the State of Texas.

20.

Plaintiff Christopher Clifford is a citizen of the State of Florida.

21.

Plaintiff Erik Liptak is a citizen of the State of Colorado.

8

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 9 of 139

B.

Defendants

22.

Defendant Major League Baseball (“MLB”) is comprised of the thirty Major

League Baseball Clubs, which have formed a partnership governed by a written agreement (the
Major League Constitution). Pursuant to the member Clubs’ agreement, MLB’s Office of the
Commissioner d/b/a Major League Baseball, is vested with responsibility for administrative and
operational matters relating to Major League Baseball, and acts on behalf of and serves as
spokesperson for all of the Clubs. At all times relevant to plaintiffs’ claims herein, Robert
Manfred has served as defendant MLB’s Commissioner, and his statements and actions, as
described herein, were duly-authorized, approved and ratified by all of MLB’s member Clubs.
MLB’s headquarters are located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York.
23.

Defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (“MLBAM”) is a limited partnership

comprised of MLB’s member Clubs (or their affiliates) and has its principal place of business at
1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York. Defendant MLBAM has responsibility
for internet and interactive marketing for MLB, including MLB’s relationship with DraftKings
and promotion and marketing of DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions on a nationwide
basis. At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLBAM acted in concert with, as partner or
joint venture with, defendant MLB in furthering MLB’s and MLBAM’s business relationship
with DraftKings.
24.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM were, at all times mentioned herein, actively

collectively to further their joint interests in promoting, marketing and receiving the financial
benefits of their agreements and relationships with DraftKings, and authorized, approved and
ratified each other’s conduct, statements and representations in such regards, including the

9

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 10 of 139

statements and representations by Manfred cited in this Complaint. Defendants MLB and
MLBAM are referred to, collectively, herein, with respect to such conduct, statements and
representations as the “MLB Defendants.”
25.

Defendant Houston Astros, LLC (the “Houston Astros” or the “Astros”) is a

Texas limited liability corporation that owns and operates the Houston Astros professional major
league baseball team and is a constituent member of MLB. At all times relevant to the events at
issue in this lawsuit, defendant Houston Astros, LLC engaged in continuing substantial business
in this District, individually and as a member of defendant MLB.
26.

Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. (the “Boston Red Sox” or the

“Red Sox”) is a Massachusetts limited partnership that owns and operates the Boston Red Sox
professional major league baseball team and is a constituent member of MLB. At all times
relevant to the events at issue in this lawsuit, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club LP
engaged in continuing substantial business in this District, individually and as a member of
defendant MLB.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I.

Fantasy Baseball

27.

Fantasy Baseball is a statistics-based wagering competition in which contestants

assemble lineups (a “fantasy team”) of real-life MLB players to compete against lineups of MLB
players selected by other contestants.
28.

The performance of a contestant’s fantasy lineup is directly tied to the real-life

performance of the players that comprise the contestant’s team. Points are awarded to each
player on a contestant’s fantasy baseball team based on the player’s objectively measurable
statistical baseball performance achievements (e.g., home runs, hits, batting average, strike outs,

10

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 11 of 139

earned run average). The contestant whose fantasy team earns the most points wins the contest
and the contest’s cash prize.
29.

Fantasy sports competitions, including fantasy baseball, are defined as a “game of

skill” and are exempted from federal prohibitions on illegal gambling and, during the 2017, 2018
and 2019 baseball seasons at issue in this action, were authorized forms of wagering in 43 states
and the District of Columbia.
II.

DraftKings’ Fantasy Baseball Wagering Contests

30.

DraftKings Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in

Boston, MA. DraftKings was founded in 2012 and operates fantasy sports contests on daily and
weekly bases through its website and mobile applications. DraftKings offers daily fantasy
contests across multiple sports, including baseball. In contrast to traditional fantasy sports
contests, which typically last an entire season, DraftKings’ contests start and end in a much
shorter period (i.e, a single day or week).
31.

Daily fantasy sports (“DFS”) baseball competitions (“MLB DFS”) offered by

DraftKings require contestants to select a lineup of MLB players pursuant to a “salary cap” draft.
In this draft, each real-life MLB player is assigned an imaginary value, or “salary.” The better a
real-life MLB player has or is expected to perform, the higher his “salary.” Contestants are
required to draft a fantasy team with players whose aggregate salary is less than the salary cap
allocated to the contestants in each given competition. The past statistical performance of the
real-life MLB players available to be drafted by contestants is, thus, a material consideration for
contestants, who rely on the accuracy of the past statistics in making decisions about whether to
draft a player to their lineups and how much to “spend” on a player in the draft.

11

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 12 of 139

32.

DraftKings’ MLB fantasy contests begin once the first real-life MLB game on

which the contest is based commences. For example, in a weeklong MLB fantasy contest, the
contest begins when the first MLB game of the week begins. Contestants accumulate fantasy
points based on the real-life performances of the MLB players they have selected for their
lineups over the length of the contest. The total points the contestant’s line-up of real-life players
generate during each specific competition determines the contestant’s ranking in the contest.
Because the points are tied directly to real-life performance metrics, a contestant’s final ranking
in the contest, and pecuniary gain or loss, is wholly dependent on player performance (and not
affected by the actual outcome of any MLB game).11
33.

DraftKings’ MLB daily and weekly fantasy contests typically take one of two

forms: head-to-head contests, which feature only two competing contestants and lineups, and
tournaments, which can include tens of thousands of user lineups. Fantasy contestants pay an
entry fee to join each competition. A portion of each entry fee is kept by DraftKings as payment
for its DFS services, and the remainder is used to fund the prize money for each fantasy
competition.
34.

From the outset, DraftKings’ DFS contests proved enormously popular and

lucrative. In 2014, just two years after it was formed and the year preceding the formation of its
league partnership agreement with MLB (discussed below), DraftKings reported over $300

11

Defendant MLB has disingenuously stated that it is unable to determine whether the outcome of any MLB games
was affected by the impermissible electronic sign stealing described in this Complaint. See Robert D. Manfred, Jr.,
Statement of the Commissioner, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL (Jan. 13, 2020) at 8, https://
img mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/cglrhmlrwwbkacty27l7.pdf (accessed Feb. 13, 2020). Even
assuming that to be true, that is irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims.

12

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 13 of 139

million in DFS entry fees and over $30 million in revenue. 12 DraftKings further reported an
eight-fold increase that year in participants in its fantasy baseball wagering contests. 13
35.

In 2013, less than a year after DraftKings was founded, defendant MLB – acting

through and in a partnership or joint venture with defendant MLBAM – invested in an equity
stake in DraftKings.14 At the request of MLB, the investment was not publicly disclosed by
DraftKings (or MLB).15 While the amount of the investment has still never been disclosed, it was
large enough to cause DraftKings employees who knew the details to be “taken aback by the size
of it.”16
36.

In April 2015, MLB and DraftKings publicly announced that MLB was taking a

further equity stake in DraftKings. While the size of MLB’s 2015 investment has remained
undisclosed, MLB’s investment was “described by league executives as sizeable enough to reap
meaningful benefit from the rise of daily fantasy.”17 In conjunction with MLB’s investment,
DraftKings and MLB entered into what they described as “the most comprehensive league
partnership in daily fantasy sports history.”18 The agreement provided for co-branding of

12

See Darren Heitner, DraftKings Reports $304 Million of Entry Fees in 2014, FORBES (Jan. 22, 2015),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/01/22/draftkings-reports-304-million-of-entry-fees-in-2014/
(accessed Jan. 22, 2020)(“Daily fantasy sports operator DraftKings has released its key annual fiscal year 2013 and
2014 financials for the first time, which shows entry fees of $45 million in 2013 and a rise to $304 million in 2014.
Revenues were $4 million and $30 million, respectively.”).
13
Id.
14
Albert Chen, Billion Dollar Fantasy: The High-Stakes Game Between FanDuel and DraftKings That Upended
Sports in America, 174 (2019).
15
Id.(“[DraftKings’] 2013 marketing partnership with MLB was a watershed moment because it was the first daily
fantasy partnership with a professional sports league, but it also was a ghost deal— at MLB’s behest, there was no
press release at the time, simply DraftKings signage popping up in major league ballparks and DraftKings banners
on MLB.com.”)(emphasis added).
16
Id. (“[S]ome early employees who knew the details of the deal were taken aback by the size of it, but what it did
accomplish was to give the industry legitimacy and also give DraftKings an inside track to a bigger deal, which was
announced in the spring of 2015.”).
17
Eric Fisher, A look into DraftKings’ MLB Deal, SPORTS BUSINESS JOURNAL (Apr. 20, 2015),
https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/04/20/Media/DraftKings-MLB.aspx (accessed Jan. 10,
2020)(emphasis added).
18
Press Release, DraftKings Becomes the Official Daily Fantasy Game of Major League Baseball, BUSINESSWIRE
(Apr. 2, 2015), https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150402006154/en/DraftKings-Official-Daily-FantasyGame-Major-League (accessed Jan. 22, 2020).

13

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 14 of 139

DraftKings’ DFS baseball contests, allowed DraftKings to offer market-specific in-ballpark
experiences, and gave DraftKings promotional rights, use of MLB league and team logos, the
exclusive right to sign sponsorship deals with individual MLB member clubs, and a designation
as MLB’s “Official Daily Fantasy Game.”19
37.

Shortly thereafter, DraftKings announced individual partnerships with 27 of

MLB’s member Clubs, including the Astros and the Red Sox.20 These partnerships enabled
DraftKings to “create one-in-a-lifetime, market-specific in-ballpark experiences” and allowed
DraftKings to place advertisements inside the stadiums of their partner MLB member clubs.
MLB, its member teams and DraftKings all benefitted financially from this aggressive marketing
campaign.
38.

In July 2015, MLB Commissioner Manfred, speaking on behalf of MLB, its

member Clubs, and MLBAM, publicly explained the importance of DraftKings fantasy baseball
to MLB, and defended its legality, stating:
I think fantasy baseball is an important source of fan engagement and has been for
a long time. We did thoroughly investigate the games that were available on the
[DraftKings] site, and we were completely comfortable with the idea that those
games were consistent with the existing federal law.21
39.

And Manfred, again speaking on behalf of MLB, its member Clubs, and

MLBAM, further emphasized in October, 2015 that MLB understood the need to safeguard the
fairness of fantasy baseball contests to insure that wagering contestants have a fair opportunity to
win, publicly stating:

19

See Fisher, supra, at note 11.
See Dustin Gouker, Play Ball: DraftKings Announces Deals with 27 Major League Baseball Teams, LEGAL
SPORTS REPORT (July 31, 2015), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/2827/draftkings-mlb-team-deals/ (accessed Jan.
22, 2020).
21
See Rome, supra, at note 2.
20

14

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 15 of 139

I think the biggest concern is the one that attracted the most publicity. You want
to make sure that the fantasy organizations have appropriate safeguards in place to
insure that things are fair, that there’s not an inappropriate use of information and
that fans who engage on these platforms have an opportunity to win. 22
Consistent with Manfred’s representation, when questions arose in 2015 concerning DraftKings’
failure to protect the fairness of its fantasy baseball contests, MLB issued a statement indicating
it had “reached out and discussed this matter with [DraftKings]. 23
40.

Manfred, on behalf of MLB, publicly reiterated the importance MLB placed on

establishing and following policies that maintained the integrity of the game of baseball in an era
of increase sports gambling, stating on November 27, 2018:
It’s more than just making a business deal [with a sports gambling operator]. It’s
having in place a set of policies for the industry that give us comfort on what is
always our most important issue – that is integrity.24
41.

And Manfred further reassured the public that, with the advent of laws legalizing

sports gambling, MLB would exercise care to maintain the integrity of the baseball:
The challenge for us is to make sure … those [sports gambling] laws develop in a
way where can protect the integrity of the sport. We want to be careful our
product retains a pristine quality.25
42.

DraftKings’ and the MLB Defendants’ aggressive marketing of MLB DFS

baseball contests has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of contest fees being paid to
DraftKings for MLB daily fantasy contests and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of
annual revenue, all to the financial benefit of defendant MLB and its constituent teams including,
the defendant Astros and the defendant Red Sox.
22

See Rovell, supra, at note 10.
ESPN News Services, DraftKings says employee didn't have unfair advantage on FanDuel, ESPN (Oct. 6, 2015),
https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/13821770/draftkings-defends-integrity-says-employee-had-no-unfairfanduel-advantage (accessed Fe. 13, 2020).
24
Billy Witz, M.L.B., Once Averse to Gambling, Strikes a Deal With MGM Resorts, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 27, 2018),
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/sports/mlb-gambling-mgm-resorts.html (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
25
Adam Candee, MLB Commish On Sports Betting: ‘We Will Never Delegate Responsibility For Those Integrity
Issues To State Regulators’, LEGAL SPORTS REPORT (July 18, 2018), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/22146/mlbcommissioner-integrity-fees/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
23

15

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 16 of 139

III.

Major League Baseball’s Official Rules and Regulations Expressly Prohibit
the Use of Electronic Devices to Steal Signs.

43.

Defendant MLB, acting principally through its Office of the Commissioner,

operates the professional sports organization known as Major League Baseball. Defendant MLB
has 30 member baseball Clubs, including the defendant Astros and the defendant Red Sox.
44.

All of MLB’s member Clubs have entered into an operating agreement, the Major

League Constitution, pursuant to which all teams agree, inter alia, to be bound by all rules and
regulations relating to games, ballparks … and other matters,” including bulletins and directives
“relating to the Commissioner’s functions and the administration of the game of baseball.”
45.

Defendant MLB’s member Clubs have all ratified and approved the conduct of

MLB Commissioner Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner set forth herein.
46.

Defendant MLB’s members Clubs have all authorized MLB Commissioner

Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner to issue public statements on their behalf and have
ratified and approved the statements by Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner set forth
herein.
47.

As an aspect of their business relationship, MLB’s member Clubs have agreed

that the Commissioner will act as their spokesman on matters involving the honesty and integrity
of the game of baseball and, further, have accepted the Commissioner’s instruction that they not
comment publicly on matters involving accusations of electronic sign stealing misconduct by
other Clubs.
48.

MLB Commissioner Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner have acted as

the duly authorized agents of all of MLB’s member Clubs with respect to the statements and
conduct set forth herein. In particular, Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner were acting
as the duly-authorized agents of all of MLB’s Clubs, including the Astros and the Red Sox, when
16

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 17 of 139

they made the public statements described herein concerning the need to protect the integrity of
the game of baseball and MLB’s continuing efforts to do so and made statements and engaged in
the conduct described herein concerning MLB member Club electronic sign stealing.
49.

Defendant MLBAM, owned by defendant MLB’s constituent Clubs (including the

defendant Astros and the defendant Red Sox) or their affiliates, provides internet and interactive
marketing services for MLB and its teams and, in particular, oversees and participates in
promoting MLB’s partnership with DraftKings and helping to promote and market, in
combination with MLB, DraftKings’ fantasy baseball wagering competitions on a nationwide
basis.
50.

Defendant MLB, through its predecessors the National League and American

League, has conducted baseball competition according to a written set of rules and regulations
since the National League’s inception in 1876. MLB’s Official Rules covering on-the-field
conduct were codified in 1949. In addition to MLB’s Official Rules, MLB issues and enforces
policies via regulations which are implemented via league-wide memoranda.
51.

Defendant MLB has long represented to the public (including members of the

public that it has sought to induce to participate in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests) that it
carefully enforces its Official Rules and regulations to ensure the honesty and integrity of the
game, MLB’s “most important priority.” 26
52.

Manfred has further repeatedly stated publicly that MLB itself, not state

regulatory authorities, will protect Major League Baseball from problems associated with
gambling. He has stated on behalf of MLB and all of its member teams, “We will never delegate
responsibility for those integrity issues … We have our own expertise and no one is more
motivated than the commissioner’s office of baseball to make sure there is no threat to the
26

See Chandler, supra, at note 2.

17

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 18 of 139

integrity of our sport.”27 In this regard, MLB has, through Manfred and other MLB
representatives, asserted to state legislatures considering sports gambling legislation, that MLB is
entitled to an “integrity fee” to be assessed on any gambling transactions in the given state to
compensate MLB for its ongoing commitment to self-policing Major League baseball and
insuring the integrity of the game of baseball as only MLB is best motivated and best able to
do.28
53.

MLB has sought legislation entitling it to an “integrity fee” on this basis in

numerous states (at least 18) considering the legalization of sports gambling. Bryan Seeley, a
Senior Vice President for MLB explained why it was so important for MLB to maintain the
integrity of the game in testimony on March 3, 2018 before the Connecticut legislature:
My sense is that fans watch our games … because they are spontaneous, they’re
unpredictable, they’re not scripted, they’re some of the best athletes in the world
striving to do their best in every play. And so anything that changes that,
anything that makes fans lose confidence in the spontaneity … could affect our
[leagues] in a major way.29
54.

MLB’s Official Rules and regulations have, throughout the period at issue in this

lawsuit, expressly prohibited the use of electronic equipment or devices during MLB games to
monitor, decipher or communicate information about a catcher and pitcher’s coded
communications with each other about each upcoming pitch.
a.

As of the start of the 2017 season, Major League Baseball regulations
expressly prohibited the use of electronic equipment or devices during
games, providing that no such equipment “may be used for the purpose of
stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a Club an
advantage.”

27

See Candee, supra, at note 27.
Id. (“That’s our job. We’re not going to delegate it to some regulator in New Jersey or whatever, with all due
respect. We care more about it. It’s what we’re about.”).
29
CT Mirror Contributor, NBA and MLB officials call for fee from legal sports betting, CT MIRROR (Mar. 1, 2018),
https://ctmirror.org/2018/03/01/nba-mlb-officials-call-fee-legal-sports-betting/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
28

18

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 19 of 139

b.

On September 15, 2017, after learning of an intentional violation by the
Boston Red Sox of what he described as the above “clear Regulation,”
Manfred issued a memorandum reiterating the rules prohibiting the use of
electronic equipment or devices to steal signs and making clear that the
General Manager and Field Manager of all Major League Clubs were
responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules.

c.

During the 2017-18 baseball offseason, the prohibition on electronic sign
stealing was expressly discussed and re-stressed at MLB’s General
Managers Meetings, including the need for monitoring of team behavior
because of team violations of the prohibition.

d.

Thereafter, in March 2018, immediately prior to the start of the 2018
baseball season, the Office of the Commissioner issued a memorandum to
all Clubs stating, in relevant part:
Major League Baseball Regulation 1-1 prohibits all uniformed
personnel, clubhouse staff and equipment staff from using or
possessing telephones or similar electronic devices, including any
type of walkie-talkies, mobile phones, ‘smart watches’ (e.g., Apple
watches), laptop computers, tablets or other communication
devices, in or near the dugout, in the bullpens or on the playing
field once batting practice has begun. MLBR 1-1 also prohibits the
use of such devices in the clubhouse within 30 minutes of the start
of a game. The prohibition includes the use of any electronic
equipment that has the capability to receive electronic messages by
any person occupying the bench or in the bullpen.
….
Electronic equipment, including game feeds in the Club replay
room and/or video room, may never be used during a game for the
purpose of stealing the opposing team’s signs. In this respect,
MLBR 1-1 expressly provides that “under no circumstances may
electronic equipment or devices be used for the purpose of stealing
signs or conveying other information designed to give a Club a
competitive advantage.” To be clear, the use of any equipment
in the clubhouse of in a Club’s replay or video rooms to decode
an opposing Club’s signs during the game violates this
Regulation. [Emphasis in original.] Clubs (and Club employees)
who are found to have utilized equipment in the replay or video
rooms for such purposes during a game will be subject to
discipline by the Commissioner’s Office.

19

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 20 of 139

55.

At all times, MLB’s prohibition on “stealing signs” with the aid of electronic

equipment or devices applied to each of MLB’s Clubs and to all of MLB’s team players and
employees.
56.

All of MLB’s Club ratified and expressly agreed to comply with MLB’s

prohibition on electronic sign stealing and represented, in writing, that they were doing so.
57.

As MLB and its member Clubs were (and are) well aware, violation of MLB’s

prohibition on electronic sign stealing substantially affects the honesty and fairness of MLB
competitions. A pitcher’s ability to conceal from a hitter the type of pitch being thrown, and the
intended speed, movement, and location of the pitch, is critical to a pitcher’s success. A team that
can successfully steal the catcher’s signs and alert its hitters to information about forthcoming
pitches will have a substantial hitting advantage in that knowing what type of pitch is coming,
and where, dramatically improves a professional major league hitter’s ability to hit the pitched
ball and to hit the pitched ball with substantial contact. As one MLB pitcher has recently
tweeted, “I would rather face a player that was taking steroids than face a player that knew every
pitch that was coming.”30
58.

The opportunity for impermissible electronic sign stealing was substantially

increased by MLB’s adoption in 2014 of the instant replay challenge process, which allows MLB
teams to challenge certain field decisions made by MLB umpires during the course of MLB
games. In order to determine whether to challenge a call, MLB teams are permitted to create
rooms (“replay rooms”) with television monitors and staffed with team employees tasked with

30

Alex Wood (@Awood45), TWITTER (Jan. 16, 2020, 1:37 PM),
https://twitter.com/Awood45/status/1217923855156760577 (accessed Jan. 22, 2020). Similarly, Hank Greenberg, a
Hall of Fame player for the Detroit Tigers from 1930 through 1945 “loved” knowing what pitch was coming and
proclaimed that he “was the greatest hitter in the world when I knew what kind of pitch was coming up.” The
Cambridge Companion to Baseball, 185, (Leonard Cassuto and Stephen Partridge eds.).

20

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 21 of 139

immediately reviewing video footage of a play so teams can decide whether to challenge a call
within the permitted period of time.
59.

Several of MLB’s Clubs, including the Astros and the Red Sox, realized that the

live video feeds in their replay rooms provided an opportunity for them to easily view and
decipher an opposing team’s pitcher and catcher signals and devised ways to relay the
information from the replay room to the dugout and to team hitters as they were batting.
Beginning in 2017, numerous MLB Clubs and the Office of the Commissioner were aware that
the Astros were impermissibly using electronic means to steal their signs in violation of MLB
rules but acquiesced and ratified the Commissioner’s determination not to act to stop or publicly
disclose such misconduct.31
60.

Because electronic sign stealing directly affects player performance statistics,

teams and players that violate MLB’s prohibition directly compromise the fairness and integrity
of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contests. Since such contests are based on MLB player
performance statistics (rather than on which team wins or loses), a violation of the electronic sign
stealing prohibition completely corrupts the fantasy baseball player selection process and the
subsequent player performance results that determine the contest winner.
61.

Although MLB was well aware in 2017, 2018 and 2019 of its member Clubs’

violations of its rule prohibiting electronic sign stealing and although MLB was well aware of
the likely impact of any such violations on player performance, MLB did not take reasonable
steps to properly investigate, deter, prevent, remedy or disclose to the wagering public the
existence of such team and player misconduct.
31

See Ken Rosenthal & Evan Drellich, The Astros stole signs electronically in 2017 — part of a much broader issue
for Major League Baseball, THE ATHLETIC (Nov. 12, 2019), https://theathletic.com/1363451/2019/11/12/the-astrosstole-signs-electronically-in-2017-part-of-a-much-broader-issue-for-major-league-baseball/ (accessed Jan. 22,
2020)(“‘Beginning in the 2017 season, numerous Clubs expressed general concerns that other Clubs were stealing
their signs,’ MLB said in a statement.”).

21

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 22 of 139

62.

MLB’s member Clubs acquiesced and ratified the Commissioner’s determination

to, in effect, turn a blind eye to the ongoing electronic sign stealing misconduct.
63.

Indeed, MLB’s Office of the Commissioner was alerted by a number of teams to

concerns that the Astros were engaged in impermissible electronic sign-stealing activities in
violation of MLB rules.
64.

In particular, in October 2018, during the 2018 post-season playoffs, MLB’s

Office of the Commissioner received reports that the Astros had utilized technological devices
to steal signs during the Astros’ successful series against the Cleveland Indians and that in
connection with the Astros’ ensuing playoff series against the Red Sox, the Astros had sent an
employee to Fenway Park to try to take photographs of the Red Sox dugout to enable the Astros
to steal signs.
65.

At that time, defendant Astros’ President of Baseball Operations and General

Manager Jeffrey Luhnow falsely denied that the Astros had or were violating MLB rules against
electronic sign stealing, falsely stating that the Astros’ suspected efforts to place an individual
with a camera in a position to view into the opposing team’s dugout was solely to make sure that
the opposing team was not cheating. Luhnow falsely stated on October 17, 2018:
We do it every stadium we go into. We dispatch someone from the travel party to
go out to center field, look at a particular area that might be suspicious or a certain
monitor. I’m sure other clubs do this as well, but we’re just trying to protect
ourselves the best we can.32
66.

In fact, the Astros had sent the individual to Fenway Park to engage in electronic

sign stealing. MLB, through the Office of the Commissioner, purported to investigate the Astros’
conduct at that time and issued a public statement on or about October 17, 2018 asserting that it

32

Bob Nightengale, MLB clears Astros of cheating, Houston GM Jeff Luhnow says team was ‘playing defense’,
USA TODAY (Oct. 17, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2018/10/17/astros-cleared-cheating-signstealing-jeff-luhnow-mlb-playoffs/1675379002/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).

22

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 23 of 139

had conducted a “thorough investigation” and that the “Astros employee was monitoring the
field to ensure the opposing club was not violating any rules.”
67.

MLB’s public assertion that it had conducted a “thorough investigation” of the

Astros’ conduct was false, as was its assertion that the Astros had not violated MLB’s
prohibition on electronic sign stealing. Had the Office of the Commissioner conducted a proper
investigation (as it falsely represented it had done), it would have determined that Luhnow’s
statement was false and that the Astros’ employee involved was, in fact, attempting to engage in
electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules.
68.

MLB’s Office of the Commissioner also received a complaint about the Astros’

electronic sign stealing misconduct from the Oakland Athletics, an MLB member Club, but did
not properly investigate the complaint or take action to prevent the Astros’ continuing electronic
sign stealing.
69.

MLB’s Clubs acquiesced to and ratified the Commissioner’s failure to take action

against the Astros because they, like the Commissioner, determined that the adverse public
relations and adverse financial effects on fan, advertising and broadcast support from taking
action against the Astros outweighed maintaining the honesty and integrity of baseball.
i.

The Houston Astros’ Impermissible Electronic Sign Stealing Corrupted
DraftKings MLB DFS Contests to the Financial Detriment of the Class.

70.

What was unknown to the public until November 2019 was that the Houston

Astros and Boston Red Sox (and most likely other MLB teams) had engaged in persistent and
continuous violations of MLB rules regarding electronic sign stealing during the 2017, 2018 and
2019 seasons.

23

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 24 of 139

71.

Prior to the start of the 2017 baseball season, employees of the Houston Astros

devised a scheme to use the Astros’ replay room video equipment to engage in electronic sign
stealing.
72.

To that end, defendant Astros’ non-uniformed employees developed an algorithm

that enabled the team to decode opposing catcher’s coded signals to opposing pitchers viewed on
the Astros’ replay room video equipment. The Astros called this algorithm “Codebreaker” and
referred to the scheme to steal signs electronically as the “dark arts,” including in written
communications to Luhnow.
73.

Pursuant to the Astros’ impermissible electronic sign stealing scheme, once the

opposing teams’ signals were decoded, Astros players reaching second base were able to
determine what pitches Astros hitters would receive and to signal that information to the hitters
in advance of the pitch. As discussed above, this information provided Astros hitters with a
significant, impermissible, hitting advantage.
74.

Shortly after the season began, the Astros’ electronic sign stealing scheme was

enhanced during Astros’ home games. Two uniformed Astros – Alex Cora, then a bench coach
for the Astros, and Carlos Beltran, then an Astros player, with the assistance of the Astros’
baseball operations staff, set up a “[video] feed from a camera in center field, fixed on the
opposing catcher’s signs, hooked up to a television monitor that was placed on a wall steps from
the team’s home dugout at Minute Maid Park.” 33 During home games, one or more Astros

33

See Ken Rosenthal & Evan Drellich, The Astros stole signs electronically in 2017 — part of a much broader issue
for Major League Baseball, THE ATHLETIC (Nov. 12, 2019), https://theathletic.com/1363451/2019/11/12/the-astrosstole-signs-electronically-in-2017-part-of-a-much-broader-issue-for-major-league-baseball/ (accessed Jan. 22,
2020).

24

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 25 of 139

players would watch the feed and decode the opposing team’s signs and would then “bang a
nearby trash can with a bat to communicate the upcoming pitch type to the batter.” 34
75.

The Astros perpetrated these electronic sign stealing schemes for Astros’ home

and away games for the entire 2017 season, including the 2017 post-season playoffs and World
Series.
76.

The Astros’ impermissible electronic sign stealing, although unknown to the

public (including fantasy baseball contestants), was “an open secret” among MLB executives,
scouts and players and made known to the Office of the Commissioner by numerous MLB
teams.35
77.

The Office of the Commissioner, with the ratification and approval of MLB’s

Clubs, determined not to investigate the Astros’ conduct, not to stop the Astros’ impermissible
electronic sign stealing, and not to disclose the Astros’ conduct.
78.

The Astros won the World Series in 2017, utilizing the impermissible electronic

sign stealing misconduct described above.
79.

After the 2017 season, the Astros continued to perpetrate electronic sign stealing

in violation of MLB’s rules and regulations throughout the 2018 and 2019 seasons.
80.

As noted above, MLB was made aware of – and falsely purported to conduct a

“thorough investigation” of the Astros and cleared the Astros of any electronic sign stealing
misconduct during the 2018 playoffs.

34

Rob Manfred, Statement of the Commissioner, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL (Jan. 13, 2020), at 2,
https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/cglrhmlrwwbkacty27l7.pdf (accessed Jan. 22, 2020).
35
See The Washington Post, Feb 11, 2020, Barry Svrluga and Dave Shienin, washingtonpost.com/sports/mlb/
astros-cheating-open-secret/2020/02/11/1830154c-4c41-11eac5b16dafaa_story.html [“’It was a big open secret,
really big,’ said a veteran scount from another teaqm whose coverage included the Astros. ‘Throughout baseball,
throughout the scouting community, for several years, not just starting in 2017. I would say probably 2016, may
earlier, through [2019], things were going on [with the Astros] that were blatantly against the rules [bracketed
material in original].’”

25

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 26 of 139

81.

Earlier in the 2018 season, during a game between the Astros and MLB member

Club the Oakland Athletics, Oakland players determined that the Astros players were clapping in
the dugout before pitches and believed they were relaying electronically stolen signs to Astros’
hitters (in what would be a modified version of the Astros’ 2017 use of trash can banging).
82.

Although the incident was reported to the Office of the Commissioner, because

MLB and its member Clubs did not want to alert the public that the integrity of baseball games
was being undermined by the Astros’ cheating, the Commissioner did not seek to investigate the
Astros’ conduct, nor was any action taken against the Astros on account of the incident, nor was
the matter ever disclosed publicly. All of MLB’s member Clubs ratified and approved the
Commissioner’s determination to take no action and keep the Astros’ conduct secret.
83.

The Astros’ electronic sign stealing misconduct remained secret until November

2019, when it was reported by Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich in a November 12, 2019 article
in The Athletic that described the Astros’ use at home games of a centerfield video feed linked to
a monitor adjacent to the Astros’ home dugout and the Astros’ use of trash can banging to alert
Astros’ hitters to upcoming pitches.36
84.

Video evidence confirming the allegations in The Athletic article soon emerged.

The trash can banging described in the article was plainly audible in video footage of Astros’
players batting in their home stadium, and the footage further demonstrated that the players were
aware of the nature of the pitch being signaled by the banging, to their significant hitting
advantage.

36

See Ken Rosenthal & Evan Drellich, The Astros stole signs electronically in 2017 — part of a much broader issue
for Major League Baseball, THE ATHLETIC (Nov. 12, 2019), https://theathletic.com/1363451/2019/11/12/the-astrosstole-signs-electronically-in-2017-part-of-a-much-broader-issue-for-major-league-baseball/ (accessed Jan. 22,
2020).

26

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 27 of 139

85.

Six days after The Athletic first revealed the trash can banging scheme to the

public, evidence emerged that MLB had long been aware of the scheme and yet remained silent.
On November 18, 2019, The Houston Chronicle reported that MLB told video monitors it placed
in the Astros’ Minute Maid Park during the 2019 season to “listen for banging sounds emanating
from the Astros’ dugout,”37 indicating that MLB knew of the Astros’ trash can scheme far in
advance of The Athletic article and had intentionally failed to disclose the scheme to the public.
86.

Manfred has acknowledged that MLB had prior awareness of the Astros’

misconduct, admitting in an interview with The Houston Chronicle on November 19, 2019, “We
have over time monitored various rumors that you hear throughout the industry, made
preliminary investigations and tried to satisfy ourselves that we know exactly what was going on.
But certainly not with the depth and detail.”
87.

In the face of the public disclosure of the Astros’ electronic sign stealing

misconduct, Manfred announced on November 19, 2019 that MLB would conduct a “very
active” and “really, really thorough investigation.”38 Manfred stated that the investigation would
not be limited to the 2017 season.39
88.

On January 13, 2020, Manfred issued a public statement purporting to contain the

results of MLB’s investigation of the Astros’ electronic sign stealing conduct. In the statement,
Manfred stated that “transparency with our fans and our Clubs regarding what occurred is
extremely important, and this report is my attempt to achieve that objective.”40

37

Chandler Rome, MLB told video monitors to listen for Astros’ banging sounds in 2019, THE HOUSTON
CHRONICLE (Nov. 18, 2019), https://www houstonchronicle.com/sports/astros/article/MLB-told-video-monitors-tolisten-for-Astros-14844792.php (accessed Jan. 16, 2020).
38
T.R. Sullivan, Manfred: Astros investigation will be thorough, MLB.COM (Nov. 19, 2019),
https://www.mlb.com/news/rob-manfred-addresses-astros-sign-stealing (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
39
Id.
40
Robert D. Manfred, Jr., Statement of the Commissioner, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL (Jan. 13,
2020), https://img.mlbstatic.com/mlb-images/image/upload/mlb/cglrhmlrwwbkacty27l7.pdf (accessed Feb. 13,
2020).

27

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 28 of 139

89.

Manfred’s representation that his public statement would contain a “transparent”

description of the Astros’ misconduct was false. Although, as set forth below, Manfred
disclosed that Astros’ team players had engaged in electronic sign stealing during the 2017 and
“part” of the 2018 seasons, in violation of MLB rules, Manfred disingenuously characterized the
misconduct as “player-driven,” even though MLB’s investigators had determined that Astros’
non-uniformed employees had developed and implemented use of the “Codebreaker” algorithm
and even though MLB investigators had obtained substantial documentary information –
including emails to and from Luhnow in 2017 from the Astros’ director of advance information,
referencing “the system” and “our dark arts, sign-stealing department” 41 – establishing that the
scheme had been undertaken with the knowledge of Luhnow, the Astros’ President of Baseball
Operations and General Manager, as well as Astros’ Field Manager A.J. Hinch. Manfred’s
“transparent” report further failed to mention the Astros’ development and use of the
“Codebreaker” algorithm or explain the extent to which the Astros’ impermissible electronic sign
stealing had continued throughout the 2018 season (including into the 2018 playoffs) and 2019
seasons.
90.

After Manfred’s statement mischaracterizing the Astros’ scheme as “player

driven” and omitting discussion of the extent of non-uniformed Astros’ employees’ (including
management’s) involvement in the scheme was issued, Luhnow – who received and sent emails
about the scheme – issued a public statement acknowledging that the Astros had engaged in
impermissible electronic sign stealing, but falsely denying that he had any knowledge of it:

41

See Jared Diamond, ‘Dark Arts’ and ‘Codebreaker’: The Origins of the Houston Astros Cheating Scheme, WALL
STREET JOURNAL (Feb. 7, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/houston-astros-cheating-scheme-dark-artscodebreaker-11581112994 (accessed Feb. 13, 2020). Although Manfred sent Luhnow a letter 11 days before
Manfred’s statement was release stating that Luhnow was aware of Codebreaker, the team’s sign-stealing algorithm,
the January 13, 2020 statement makes no reference to that fact.

28

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 29 of 139

I did not know rules were being broken. …. The [Astros’] sign-stealing initiative
was not planned or directed by baseball management; the trash-can banging was
driven and executed by players, and the video decoding of signs originated and
was executed by lower-level employees working with the bench coach. I am
deeply upset that I wasn’t informed of any misconduct because I would have
stopped it. 42
91.

Notwithstanding the patent shortcomings of Manfred’s January 13, 2020 report, it

nonetheless contained the following relevant findings of electronic sign stealing misconduct by
the Astros in violation of MLB rules and regulations:
a.

At the beginning of the 2017 season, employees in the Astros’ video
replay review room began using the live game feed from the center field
camera to attempt to decode and transmit opposing teams’ sign sequences
(i.e., which sign flashed by the catcher is the actual sign) for use when an
Astros runner was on second base. Once the sign sequence was decoded, a
player in the video replay review room would act as a “runner” to relay the
information to the dugout, and a person in the dugout would notify the
players in the dugout or signal the sign sequence to the runner on second
base, who in turn would decipher the catcher’s sign and signal to the batter
from second base.

b.

Approximately two months into the 2017 season, a group of players,
including Beltrán, discussed that the team could improve on decoding
opposing teams’ signs and communicating the signs to the batter. Cora
arranged for a video room technician to install a monitor displaying the
center field camera feed immediately outside of the Astros’ dugout [. . .]
One or more players watched the live feed of the center field camera on
the monitor, and after decoding the sign, a player would bang a nearby
trash can with a bat to communicate the upcoming pitch type to the batter;
and

c.

[T]he Astros’ replay review room staff continued, at least for part of the
2018 season, to decode signs using the live center field camera feed, and
to transmit the signs to the dugout through in-person communication. 43

42

Jeff Luhnow, Statement by Jeff Luhnow, Associated Press (Jan. 13, 2020),
https://apnews.com/PR%20Newswire/92872c1fc2ac64279d395da6241ed72f (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
43
See Manfred, supra, at note 45.

29

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 30 of 139

92.

And, significantly, Manfred’s report makes clear that the Astros’ team players

participated in the wrongful scheme with knowledge that it was wrong:
Most of the position players on the 2017 team either received sign information
from the banging scheme or participated in the scheme by helping to decode signs
or bang on the trash can. Many of the players who were interviewed admitted that
they knew the scheme was wrong because it crossed the line from what the player
believed was fair competition and/or violated MLB rules. 44
93.

The Astros’ electronic sign stealing inflated the Astros’ player performance

statistics used by DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants to formulate their MLB DFS wagers and
deflated the statistics of opposing pitchers, compromising and corrupting the fairness of the
fantasy baseball contests.
94.

Analyses have shown that the Houston Astros’ sign stealing schemes were

effective and allowed the Astros players to improve their performance “at a level unparalleled in
the last 100 years.”45 Jayson Stark and Eno Sarris of The Athletic have examined the Astros’
performance data and determined that the Astros as a team went from striking out the fourthmost in baseball and the eighth-most in the history of the game in 2016 to striking out less than
any team in the league in 2017.46 This statistical analysis of the Astros’ strikeout rates “found
essentially no parallel between the 2017 Astros and any other team in the live-ball era, in the
ability to appreciably cut down on strikeouts everywhere—but by a much larger margin at
home,” 47 where the Astros utilized the trash can banging scheme.
95.

The Astros’ ability to know what pitch was coming unsurprisingly further led to

significant improvement in their ability to hit those pitches. For example, Stark and Sarris
observed that the Astros improved their slugging percentage on strikes by 70 percentage points
44

Id.
Jayson Stark & Eno Sarris, Does electronic sign stealing work? The Astros’ numbers are eye-popping, THE
ATHLETIC (Jan. 31, 2020).
46
Id.
47
Id. (emphasis in original).
45

30

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 31 of 139

in 2017 as compared to 2016.48 No other team in the history of baseball has improved so
dramatically at hitting strikes.49 The various advantages conferred on Astros players as a result
of electronic sign stealing were worth, by some estimates, as much as five additional wins over
the course of the regular season in 2017.50
96.

The Astros not only engaged in impermissible electronic sign stealing that

corrupted fantasy baseball statistics, but further issued numerous fraudulent statements that
concealed from the public (including the fantasy baseball wagering public) the Astros’
misconduct and falsely attributed the Astros’ hitting success to player ability, team hard work
and modern analytics. These false statements – including false statements by Lunhow, Hinch,
team players and fraudulent promotions by the team itself – included the following:
a.

“Hard to get specific, I had to revamp everything and that’s what I did this
whole offseason and that’s what spring training for me was for was getting
used to this new swing and its starting to come out right now and it feels
good.” Astros player Jake Marisnick on May 28, 2017 commenting on
his offensive success.51 Analysis has shown that the Astros banged on
trash cans during over 22% of pitches thrown to Marisnick during
home games in 2017.52

b.

“He’s a middle of the order bat whose leading off the game and once it
rolls back around you can see how productive he can be getting the most
at-bats of the night . . . . its incredible to watch him grow as a hitter and do
some things behind the scenes that he is maturing with pretty quickly.”
Astros Manager A.J. Hinch on June 28, 2017 discussing Astros player
George Springer’s hitting ability after defeating the Oakland Athletics
11-8.53 Game footage reveals that the Astros banged on the trash can

48

Id.
Id.
50
Jake Mailhot, Which Players Might Have Benefited from the Astros’ Sign-Stealing?, FANGRAPHS (Nov. 27, 2019),
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/which-players-might-have-benefited-from-the-astros-sign-stealing/ (accessed Feb. 12,
2020).
51
Adam Wexler, Catching up with Astros outfielder Jake Marisnick, CLICK2HOUSTON.COM,
https://www.click2houston.com/sports/2017/05/29/catching-up-with-astros-outfielder-jake-marisnick/ (accessed
Feb. 13, 2020).
52
Tony Adams, Astros Bangs: Team Total, SIGN STEALING SCANDAL, http://signstealingscandal.com/ (accessed Feb
13, 2020).
53
A.J. Hinch, Hinch on Offensive outburst, MLB.COM (June 28, 2017), https://www mlb.com/video/hinch-onoffensive-outburst-c1551448283 (accessed Feb. 13,2020).
49

31

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 32 of 139

26 times and 10 times during George Springer’s at-bats during that
game.54
c.

“That inning just continued to go. It’s one of the proudest moments that I
have about our team or one of the things I love the most about our team is
that we just keep coming at you. At bat after At-bat continues to be good
and we can put some big innings on some really good pitchers. Astros
Manager A.J. Hinch on July 14, 2017, after defeating the Minnesota
Twins 10-5.55 Game footage reveals that the Astros banged on the
trash can 48 times during that game.56

d.

“It’s not unusual for us to have big nights when we put good at-bats
together.” Astros Manager A.J. Hinch on Aug. 4, 2017, after defeating
the Toronto Blue Jays 16-7.57 Game footage reveals that the Astros
banged on the trash can 54 times during that game.58

e.

“We’ve got guys that have been putting up pretty good at bats. It was nice
to break out and get a couple of runs. Throughout the day I think our at
bats were pretty good.” Astros Manager A.J. Hinch on Aug. 23, 2017,
after defeating the Washington National 6-1.59 Game footage reveals
that the Astros banged on the trash can 47 times during that game.60

f.

“They threw him a couple breaking balls in a row and he hung in
there…his hard hit rate is off the chart he’s really good at making contact
on the barrel with some length and the ball carries pretty far out there so
he’s what they call a professional hitter and it doesn’t matter what country
or what level, this guy can really hit.” Astros Manager A.J. Hinch on
Sept. 23, 2017 discussing Astros player Carlos Correa hitting ability
after defeating the Chicago White Sox 4-3. 61 Analysis has concluded
the Astros can be heard banging on the trash can 31 times and 10
times during Carlos Correa’s at-bats.62

g.

“We talk internally about being on the ‘bleeding edge.’ We know we’re
going to have some cuts, some nicks, some bruises because if we’re not,

54

See Adams, supra, at note 57.
A.J. Hinch, Hinch on 10-5 wins over Twins, MLB.com (July 14, 2017), https://www.mlb.com/mets/video/hinchon-10-5-win-over-twins-c1606863683 (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
56
See Adams, supra, at note 57.
57
See Associated Press, Ex-Dodgers Pitcher Mike Bolsinger Sues Astros, Says Their Sign Stealing Ended His MLB
Career (Feb. 10, 2020), KTLA4, https://ktla.com/2020/02/10/ex-dodgers-pitcher-mike-bolsinger-sues-astros-saystheir-sign-stealing-ended-his-mlb-career/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
58
See Adams, supra, at note 57.
59
A.J. Hinch, Hinch of Fiers’ performance, MLB.COM (Aug. 23, 2017), https://www.mlb.com/video/hinch-on-fiersperformance-c1764557383 (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
60
See Adams, supra, at note 57.
61
A.J. Hinch, Hinch on Peacock’s Performance, MLB.com (Sept. 20, 2017),
https://www.mlb.com/astros/video/hinch-on-peacock-s-performance-c1842902783 (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
62
See Adams, supra, note 57.
55

32

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 33 of 139

it’s similar to base running. If you have a player on first, and he never gets
thrown out at third on a single to right field, he’s not being aggressive
enough. If you don’t ever get thrown out at third, you’re leaving runs on
the table. I consider it the same way in terms of how quickly we
implement new technologies and try and squeeze out a competitive
advantage. Astros General Manager Jeff Luhnow in June 2018 to
McKinsey Quarterly.63
h.

“The old way of looking at a season’s worth of performance data and
using that to predict the future is kind of obsolete . . . . [w]e get tens of
thousands of rows of data—about every swing, every pitch, every fielder
movement—and we need to decide what to do with that information.”
Brandon Taubman, Astros Assistant General Manager in Spring
2018.64

i.

“I wish I knew [which pitch was coming]…every time we got hits now
everyone thinks somebody’s tipping . . . can you have [Alex Rodriguez]
help us out and let us know?” Astros player Alex Bregman on October
16, 2019 in response to Alex Rodriguez alleging the Astros knew the
pitches in advance.65

j.

"In reality, it's a joke. But Major League Baseball does a lot to ensure the
fairness of the game. There's people everywhere. If you go through the
dugouts and the clubhouses and the hallways, there's like so many people
around.” A.J. Hinch on October 17, 2019 responding to New York
Yankees’ allegations that the Astros were illegally stealing signs. 66

k.

“It sucks for our players . . . because those guys are so talented. And I
don't think anything should take away from what they're able to
accomplish. And so in that aspect, it's disappointing. . . . But I think we
know what's going on there. Look at what we're getting accused of. How
many runs did we score in that first game? But I understand where the
paranoia comes from. We have it. I have it.’ Astros Pitcher Justin

63

Aaron De Smet & Allen Web, A view from the front lines of baseball’s data-analytics revolution, MCKINSEY
QUARTERLY (June 2018), https://web.archive.org/web/20191030085219/https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/organization/our-insights/how-the-houston-astros-are-winning-through-advanced-analytics# (accessed
Feb. 13, 2020).
64
Brad Herzog, Houston, We Solved a Problem – How baseball analytics guru Brandon Taubman ’07 helped lead
the Astros to their first-ever World Series win, CORNELL ALUMNI MAGAZINE (Mar./Apr. 2018),
http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/houston-solved-problem/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
65
Mark Berman (@MarkBermanFox26), Alex Rodriguez (@AROD) Tweeted Luis Severino was tipping his
pitches..Astros knew what was coming. Alex Bregman (@ABREG_1) says not the case: “I wish I knew..Every time
we get hits now everyone thinks somebody’s tipping..(Jokingly said) “Can u have him help us out & let us know.”
TWITTER (Oct. 16, 2019, 12:28 AM), https://twitter.com/markbermanfox26/status/1184325169206235136?lang=en
(accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
66
Associated Press, Hinch blows whistle, calls sign stealing suspicions 'a joke', USA TODAY (Oct. 17, 2019),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/10/17/hinch-blows-whistle-calls-signal-suspicions-ajoke/40335919/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).

33

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 34 of 139

Verlander on October 17, 2019 responding to New York Yankees’
allegations that the Astros were illegally stealing signs.67
l.

97.

"Not everything is about tipping . . . .[w]e can hit, too . . . . [b]ut I think it's
disrespectful that every time we score a lot of runs, people talk about
tipping. Nobody was tipping today and we scored, what, eight runs? We're
great hitters. We've been doing it for a whole season.” Astros player
Carlos Correa on October 17, 2019 responding to New York Yankees’
allegations that the Astros were illegally stealing signs.68

As the above-mentioned quotes demonstrate, on a nearly daily basis the Astros

disseminated statements to the public misrepresenting that their success was due to, inter alia,
their embrace of analytics and their approach to batting rather than their implementation and
execution of the Trash Can Scheme and Replay Room Scheme.
98.

Moreover, for the 2017 baseball season, the Houston Astros adopted a false public

theme “Earn History” and placed the phrase on souvenir cups, t-shirts, rally towels, baseball
caps, banners, social media outlets, and more. The Astros placed signs around Minute Maid Park
explaining the theme. One sign was placed in the underground tunnel connecting clubhouses and
offices and read:
What does it really mean to make history? To do something that has never been
done. To write your name in the books? There’s only one way—you’ve got to
earn it. We’re talking about respect and creating a legacy. So who cares what
everyone else says? History won’t remember them. Stay relentless. Unleash
greatness and create your own destiny. For Houston, for H-Town, for the H. It’s
time to show the world who we are. Earning our place in history together. 69
99.

Defendant Astros’ false theme: “Earn History,” falsely represented that the team’s

success was “earned” based on player performance and other legitimate baseball factors, rather
than impermissible cheating through electronic sign stealing. Defendant Astros’ use of this false
67

Bob Nighten, 'It's a joke': Astros livid about cheating allegations in ALCS vs. Yankees, USA TODAY (Oct. 17,
2019), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2019/10/17/houston-astros-cheatingyankees-alcs/4013592002/ (accessed Feb. 13, 2020).
68
Id.
69
Kevin Schindler, Final World Series Blog, 2017: Astros Earn History, ARIZONA DAILY SUN (Nov. 1, 2017),
https://azdailysun.com/news/local/final-world-series-blog-astros-earn-history/article_7f41ba28-9c8a-59d3-8e716bbd41c3c090 html (accessed Feb 14, 2017).

34

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 35 of 139

motto, in 2017 and in ensuing years, was ubiquitous. Defendant Astros displayed the motto on
pennants and banners, posters, stadium signage, pole banners, programs, advertisements, on line
screen shots, promotional videos about the team, team clothing (including hats, shirts, sweat
shirts, and rally towels) and merchandise (such as souvenir cups).
100.

Plaintiff and the Class of other similarly-situated DraftKings’ MLB DFS

contestants were induced by defendants’ promotion of DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests and
fraudulent statements to participate in wagering competitions that defendants knew were
corrupted by the defendant Astros, to plaintiff’s and the Class’s financial detriment.
ii.

The Boston Red Sox’s Impermissible Electronic Sign Stealing Corrupted
DraftKings MLB DFS Contests to the Financial Detriment of the Class.

101.

During the 2017 season, defendant Red Sox also engaged in electronic sign

stealing, in knowing violation of MLB’s rules and regulations prohibiting such conduct.
102.

Defendant Red Sox positioned one of its employees in the team replay room and

had the employee review video replay from the center field cameras to decode the opposing
team’s catcher’s signs to the opposing team’s pitcher. The Red Sox employee(s) in the reply
room then sent the decoding information to the Apple Watch of another Red Sox employee
located in the Red Sox dugout. The employee in the dugout then relayed that information to one
or more Red Sox players in the dugout. The Red Sox player(s) in the dugout then relayed the
decoding information to Red Sox runners on second base, who could see the opposing catcher’s
signs and decode the signs based on the video room information. The Red Sox runner on second
base then gave signals to the Red Sox batter providing the batter with information about the type
and location of each pitch.
103.

The effect of the Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing was to afford

Red Sox batters a substantial competitive advantage.
35

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 36 of 139

104.

Defendant Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing during the 2017

season could not have succeeded without the knowledge, participation and support of Red Sox
players and Red Sox management, including the Red Sox Field Manager.
105.

The Red Sox electronic sign stealing in 2017 resulted in corrupted player

performance statistics for Red Sox hitters and for opposing pitchers, that compromised and
rendered unfair DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contests in 2017.
106.

Defendant MLB has publicly acknowledged it received a complaint about the Red

Sox electronic sign stealing scheme in September 2017 from the New York Yankees. At that
time, Manfred fined defendant Red Sox an insignificant amount, but took no action against any
of defendant Red Sox’s players, employees or management involved in perpetrating or
approving the impermissible electronic sign stealing scheme. Defendant MLB’s member teams
ratified and approved Manfred’s disposition of the Red Sox’s electronic sign stealing
misconduct.
107.

Not surprisingly, defendant Red Sox resumed its impermissible electronic sign

stealing misconduct during the 2018 baseball season. Rosenthal and Drellich wrote in their
November 12, 2019 article that “electronic sign-stealing [was] not a single team issue” 70 and on
January 2, 2020 published information sourced to current and former Red Sox personnel that the
Red Sox impermissibly implemented a renewed replay room scheme throughout the 2018 MLB
regular season.
108.

Defendant Red Sox hired Alex Cora – the Astros’ bench coach who was one of

the architects of the Astros’ trash can banging scheme – as their Field Manager in advance of the

70

Ken Rosenthal & Evan Drellich, MLB’s sign-stealing controversy broadens: Sources say the Reed Sox used video
replay room illegally in 2018, THE ATHLETIC (Jan. 7, 2020), https://theathletic.com/1510673/2020/01/07/mlbs-signstealing-controversy-broadens-sources-say-the-red-sox-used-video-replay-room-illegally-in-2018/ (accessed Jan. 15,
2020).

36

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 37 of 139

2018 MLB season. According to Rosenthal and Drellich, Cora immediately set out to recreate
one of the schemes he implemented while on the Astros: the use of the replay room to steal signs
electronically. According to Rosenthal and Drellich, “[t]hree people who were with the Red Sox
during their 108-win 2018 season” told them that “at least some players visited the video replay
room during games to learn the sign sequence opponents were using.” 71
109.

Like the Astros’ improper electronic sign stealing schemes described above, the

Red Sox’s 2018 replay room scheme harmed Plaintiffs and the Class by improperly distorting the
performance statistics of Red Sox players and their opponents in 2018, rendering the resulting
fantasy baseball contest dishonest and unfair.
110.

Analyses have shown that the Red Sox’s electronic sign stealing, like the Astros’,

was effective and caused Red Sox players to hit substantially better with runners on second base
in 2018 than they did in 2017. For example, analysis by Jake Mailhot of FanGraphs, a baseball
statistics and analysis website, observed that Red Sox’s Weighted On-Base Average 72 (“wOBA”)
with runners on second base jumped substantially in 2018 as compared to 2017 and far
outperformed the MLB league average:73 In particular, Mailhot observed that the Red Sox
excelled at hitting off-speed pitches when they had a runner on second base:
It’s clear that the Red Sox hit much better when there was a runner on
second base. They simply crushed offspeed pitches and saw smaller
benefits when facing breaking balls and fastballs. The obvious implication
71

Ken Rosenthal & Evan Drellich, MLB’s sign-stealing controversy broadens: Sources say the Red Sox used video
replay room illegally in 2018, The Athletic (Jan. 7, 2020), https://theathletic.com/1510673/2020/01/07/mlbs-signstealing-controversy-broadens-sources-say-the-red-sox-used-video-replay-room-illegally-in-2018/ (accessed Jan. 22,
2020).
72
Weighted On-Base Average is “a rate statistic which attempts to credit a hitter for the value of each outcome
(single, double, etc.) rather than treating all hits or times on base equally. wOBA is on the same scale as On-Base
Percentage (OBP) and is a better representation of offensive value than batting average.” Steve Slowinski,
Sabermetrics Library – wOBA, FANGRAPHS (Feb. 15, 2010), https://library.fangraphs.com/offense/woba/ (accessed
Feb. 12, 2020).
73
Jake Mailhot, How Much Did the Red Sox Benefit from Their Sign-Stealing Scheme?, FANGRAPHS (Jan. 23,
2020), https://blogs fangraphs.com/how-much-did-the-red-sox-benefit-from-their-sign-stealing-scheme/ (accessed
Feb. 12, 2020).

37

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 38 of 139

is that the team gained an advantage when a runner on second was able to
relay the incoming pitch to the batter. When we compare their aggregate
run values from 2017 to 2018, I estimate they gained a total cumulative
value around five wins — the same estimated benefit the Astros saw with
their sign-stealing scheme in 2017.74
111.

The Red Sox not only engaged in impermissible electronic sign stealing that

corrupted fantasy baseball statistics, but further issued numerous fraudulent statements that
concealed from the public (including the fantasy baseball wagering public) the Red Sox’s
misconduct and falsely attributed the Red Sox’s hitting success to player ability and legitimate
baseball factors. These false statements – including false statements by Cora and Dave
Dombrowski, team players and fraudulent promotions by the team itself – included the
following:
a.

We’re getting better. We’re staying away from strikes on the edges. We’re
looking for pitches in the middle of the zone and putting good swings. If
they’re not there, we’re taking their walks. . . .you know two big innings,
one Sunday one today. . . .they found a way to grind out great at bats
against a great pitchers.” Alex Cora on April 10, 2018 after defeating
the New York Yankees 14-1.75

b.

“Good at bats again. . . .its instant offense. Mookie works a walk, Benny
hits the wall, we score one and then Hanley, you should’ve seen his BP
today that was impressive so we felt very good about him and he put a
good swing on it and from there it was just good at-bat after good at-bat.
They’re doing a good job staying in the zone and not expanding and
putting good swings on pitches that they can drive.” Alex Cora on April
14, 2018 after defeating the Baltimore Orioles 10-3.76

c.

“He’s staying on pitches you can see on his takes. The way he is taking
pitches tells you at a lot. We’ve been talking a lot lately about him staying
in the zone and not chasing pitches. He was able to get that pitch in the air
the other way. He’s feeling good about himself, putting good at-bats, not
expanding so those are all good signs for hitters. . . .it was all around a

74

Id.
Alex Cora, Cora on huge win over Yankees, MLB.COM (Apr. 10, 2018), https://www.mlb.com/redsox/video/coraon-huge-win-over-yankees-c1925599983 (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
76
Alex Cora, Cora on Red Sox’s 10-3 victory, MLB.COM (Apr. 14, 2018),
75

38

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 39 of 139

good offensive game for us.” Alex Cora on May 28, 2018 after defeating
the Toronto Blue Jays 8-3.77
d.

“Lineup-wise everybody’s doing an outstanding job . . .like I said. . . its
getting fun…it’s a pretty good lineup right now from top to bottom,
everybody is putting good at-bats. . . . the line kept moving and that’s what
its all about, from top to bottom just be relentless and that’s what they’ve
been doing the last few weeks.” Alex Cora on July 10, 2018 after
defeating the Texas Rangers 8-4. 78

e.

“Jackie [Bradley] has been one of our best hitters the last month and a half
. . . he’s driving in runs he’s hitting the ball solid, he’s staying in the
middle of the ballpark, if you see his contact, the quality of his at-bats,
driving the ball, then you see the hitter that we see. . . .he’s doing an
outstanding job.” Alex Cora on July 28, 2018 after defeating the
Minnesota Twins 10-4.79

f.

“It was good, put the ball in play, a little more aggressive. . . .if you stay
away from the edges of the strike zone and you get pitches in the middle
of the plate and you square them off you’re going to have good results and
we’ve been doing that the whole season. . . .it seems like today they were
ready to hit, they were looking for pitches in the middle of the zone and
they did a good job.” Alex Cora on August 22, 2018 after defeating the
Cleveland Indians 10-4.80

g.

"It's almost overwhelming . . . .because you just never think that you'll be
associated with a club that can do that. [To go] 119-57? Those numbers
are mind-boggling. It's winning more than two-thirds of your games over
the year, so, no, I don't think you can really grasp it, and I think it's a
tribute to all these guys. You don't get to that point unless you're talented
and you grind, you really work through things, you bounce back, you're
resilient and you're tough. And that's this group." Dave Dombrowski,
Red Sox President of Baseball Operations, on October 28, 2018 after
the Red Sox won the World Series.81

77

Alex Cora, Alex Cora on Jackie Bradley Jr.’s catch: ‘Woah’, YOUTUBE.COM (May 28, 2018),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JucOElDyUoQ (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
78
Alex Cora, Cora on offense in win, MLB.COM (July 10, 2018), https://www mlb.com/video/cora-on-offense-inwin-c2256697083 (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
79
Alex Cora, Cora discusses win over Twins, MLB.COM (July 28, 2018), https://www.mlb.com/video/coradiscusses-win-over-twins-c2322233983 (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
80
Alex Cora, Cora on offense after 10-4 win, MLB.COM (Aug. 22, 2018), https://www.mlb.com/video/cora-onoffense-after-10-4-win-c2417205683 (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).
81
Anthony Castrovince, Team of this century? Sox win 4th title since '04, MLB.COM (Oct. 28, 2018),
https://www.mlb.com/redsox/news/red-sox-win-2018-world-series-title-c299876586 (accessed Feb. 14, 2020).

39

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 40 of 139

112.

As the above-mentioned quotes demonstrate, on an almost daily basis the Red

Sox represented to the world that their success was due to, inter alia, their hard work and
approach to batting rather than their impermissible electronic sign stealing scheme.
113.

Plaintiff and the Class of other similarly-situated Draftkings’ MLB DFS

contestants were induced by defendants’ promotion of DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests to
participate in wagering competitions that defendants knew were corrupted by the defendant Red
Sox, to plaintiff’s and the Class’s financial detriment.
114.

Plaintiff and the Class are not privy to the total number of complaints filed by

MLB member teams prior to November 2019 against other MLB teams alleging use of electronic
devices to steal signs in violation of MLB rules and regulations, but the following complaints
have been publicly reported:

115.

a.

In 2017, the New York Yankees filed a complaint alleging that the Red
Sox were stealing signs using Apple Watches in contravention of MLB
rules.

b.

In August 2018, the Oakland Athletics filed a complaint alleging that the
Astros were stealing signs using electronic equipment in contravention of
MLB rules.

c.

In October 2018, the Cleveland Indians complained that the Astros were
stealing signs using electronic equipment in contravention of MLB rules.

d.

In October 2019, the New York Yankees complained that the Astros were
stealing signs using electronic equipment in contravention of MLB rules.

Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci has reported that in the course of its

investigation of the Astros, MLB investigators were told by Astros personnel that they believed
as many as eight other MLB member teams were electronically stealing signs. 82 Defendant MLB

82

See Tom Verducci, Why MLB Issued Historic Punishment to Astros for Sign Stealing, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (Jan.
13, 2020), https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/01/13/houston-astros-cheating-punishment (accessed Jan. 22, 2020).

40

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 41 of 139

has not disputed Verducci’s report, but has not identified any of the teams or publicly stated how
it intends to address this accusation.
iii.

The Conduct of MLB and its Member Clubs Resulted in Millions of Dollars
in Losses to the Class that Would Not have Occurred But For the Wrongful
and Deceptive Conduct.

116.

The Astros’ and the Red Sox’s electronic sign stealing schemes compromised the

integrity of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contests in 2017, 2018 and 2019. Untold numbers
of hits, walks, runs, and wins were dishonestly obtained and awarded to the Astros and Red Sox
that would not have taken place but for the Astros’ and the Red Sox’s players’ impermissiblygained advanced knowledge of pitches. The Astros’ and Red Sox’s misconduct, combined with
MLB’s intentional failure to enforce its rules or disclose the wrongdoing, resulted in DraftKings’
contestants taking part in dishonest and unfair wagering competitions.
117.

In particular, the performance statistics on which the DraftKings’ MLB DFS

contests were based were corrupted in in numerous ways, including but not limited to the
following:
a.

DraftKings contestants who drafted pitchers for their MLB DFS lineup
who were pitching against the Astros in Houston or the Red Sox in Boston
were harmed when those pitchers performed poorly as a result of the Trash
Can Scheme and/or Replay Room Schemes;

b.

DraftKings contestants who played MLB DFS contests against opponents
who selected Astros players or Red Sox players playing at home were
harmed when the opponents’ Astros or Red Sox players statistics were
corruptly enhanced by the Trash Can Scheme or Replay Room Schemes;

c.

DraftKings contestants were fraudulently induced to pick Astros or Red
Sox players for their MLB DFS teams based on artificial statistics (and not
to select pitchers who had fared poorly in games against the Astros and
Red Sox at their home stadiums) and were harmed when the Astros or Red
Sox players did not perform as well as expected in away games (or the
unselected pitchers performed better) as a result of not having access to
the Trash Can Scheme or Replay Room Scheme.

41

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 42 of 139

d.

DraftKings contestants overpaid when they selected Astros or Red Sox
players for their MLB DFS teams based on artificial statistics created by
the Trash Can Scheme or Replay Room Scheme.

iv.

Defendants Have Profited Enormously from their Wrongful Conduct.

118.

Defendant MLB and its member teams have profited enormously, at the expense

of Plaintiff and the other Class Members, from their wrongful promotion and marketing of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests and participation in soliciting contestant wagers.
119.

The financial benefits to defendants from their misconduct include not only their

share of DraftKings’ enormous fantasy baseball fees. Equally important, MLB and its teams
benefited substantially from the increased fan involvement in the game that participation in
fantasy baseball wagering engenders – producing increased fan attendance, increased advertising
and television revenues, and increased sales of MLB paraphernalia. 83
120.

And both the Astros and the Red Sox have profited enormously from winning the

2017 and 2018 World Series, with resulting increases in fan attendance and seat prices,
advertising and broadcast revenue, merchandise sales, and team valuations.

83

Indeed, a study conducted by FanDuel found that fans who played daily fantasy sports consumed 40% more sports
content. Brent Schrotenboer, Leagues see real benefits in daily fantasy sports, USA TODAY (Jan. 1, 2015),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/01/01/daily-fantasy-sports-gambling-fanduel-draftkings-nba-nfl-mlbnhl/21165279/ (accessed Jan. 16, 2020) (“If there is a statistic that puts dollar signs in the heads of league
commissioners, it's this one: Fans consume 40% more sports content — across all media — once they start playing
FanDuel.”).

42

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 43 of 139

v.

Plaintiff Kristopher R. Olson

121.

Plaintiff Kristopher R. Olson was an active DraftKings MLB DFS contest

participant during the period at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Olson placed at least 226 entries
into DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests during the Class Period.
122.

Plaintiff Olson would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Houston Astros engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
123.

Plaintiff Olson would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Boston Red Sox engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
124.

Plaintiff Olson would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the honesty of the player performance statistics on
which his wagers were based and the results of his wagers were determined was compromised by
MLB teams’ and players’ electronic sign stealing.
vi.

Plaintiff Christopher Lopez

125.

Plaintiff Christopher Lopez was an active DraftKings MLB DFS contest

participant during the period at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Lopez placed hundreds of entries
into DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests during the Class Period.
126.

Plaintiff Christopher Lopez would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS

contests during the Class Period had he known that the Houston Astros engaged in the electronic
sign stealing schemes described above.

43

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 44 of 139

127.

Plaintiff Lopez would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Boston Red Sox engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
128.

Plaintiff Lopez would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the honesty of the player performance statistics on
which his wagers were based and the results of his wagers were determined was compromised by
MLB teams’ and players’ electronic sign stealing.
vii.

Plaintiff Warren Barber

129.

Plaintiff Warren Barber was an active DraftKings MLB DFS contest participant

during the period at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Barber placed hundreds of entries into
DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests during the Class Period.
130.

Plaintiff Warren Barber would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS

contests during the Class Period had he known that the Houston Astros engaged in the electronic
sign stealing schemes described above.
131.

Plaintiff Barber would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Boston Red Sox engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
132.

Plaintiff Barber would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the honesty of the player performance statistics on
which his wagers were based and the results of his wagers were determined was compromised by
MLB teams’ and players’ electronic sign stealing.

44

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 45 of 139

viii.

Plaintiff Christopher Clifford

133.

Plaintiff Christopher Clifford was an active DraftKings MLB DFS contest

participant during the period at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Clifford placed entries into
DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests during the Class Period.
134.

Plaintiff Christopher Clifford would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS

contests during the Class Period had he known that the Houston Astros engaged in the electronic
sign stealing schemes described above.
135.

Plaintiff Clifford would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Boston Red Sox engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
136.

Plaintiff Clifford would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the honesty of the player performance statistics on
which his wagers were based and the results of his wagers were determined was compromised by
MLB teams’ and players’ electronic sign stealing.
ix.

Plaintiff Erik Liptak

137.

Plaintiff Erik Liptak was an active DraftKings MLB DFS contest participant

during the period at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff Olson placed thousands of entries into
DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests during the Class Period.
138.

Plaintiff Liptak would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Houston Astros engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.

45

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 46 of 139

139.

Plaintiff Liptak would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the Boston Red Sox engaged in the electronic sign
stealing schemes described above.
140.

Plaintiff Liptak would not have entered into DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests

during the Class Period had he known that the honesty of the player performance statistics on
which his wagers were based and the results of his wagers were determined was compromised by
MLB teams’ and players’ electronic sign stealing.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
141.

Plaintiffs Olson, Lopez, Barber, Clifford, and Liptak bring this action on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), as representatives of the class defined as follows (the
“Nationwide Class”)84:
All individuals who participated in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests that took place from
April 2, 2017 through October 30, 2019 and paid an entry fee for, and entered a lineup
into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.
142.

Plaintiff Olson also seeks to certify the following Massachusetts subclass (the

“Massachusetts Subclass”):
All individuals residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who participated in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests that took place from April 2, 2017 through October 30,
2019 and paid an entry fee for, and entered a lineup into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.
143.

Plaintiff Lopez also seeks to certify the following California subclass (the

“California Subclass”):
All individuals residing in the State of California who participated in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests that took place from April 2, 2017 through October 30, 2019 and paid an
entry fee for, and entered a lineup into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.

84

Collectively, the Class and the Subclasses defined below are referred to as the “Classes.”

46

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 47 of 139

144.

Plaintiff Barber also seeks to certify the following Texas subclass (the “Texas

Subclass”):
All individuals residing in the State of Texas who participated in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests that took place from April 2, 2017
through October 30, 2019 and paid an entry fee for, and entered a lineup
into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.
145.

Plaintiff Clifford also seeks to certify the following Florida subclass (the “Florida

Subclass”):
All individuals residing in the State of Florida who participated in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests that took place from April 2, 2017
through October 30, 2019 and paid an entry fee for, and entered a lineup
into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.
146.

Plaintiff Liptak also seeks to certify the following Colorado subclass (the

“Colorado Subclass”):
All individuals residing in the State of Colorado who participated in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests that took place from April 2, 2017
through October 30, 2019 and paid an entry fee for, and entered a lineup
into, a DraftKings MLB DFS contest.
147.

Plaintiffs Olson, Lopez, Barber, Clifford, and Liptak, on behalf the Nationwide

Class, seek certification of claims against Defendants MLB and MLBAM for violation of the
MASS. GEN. LAW, Ch. 93A, § 1 et seq., CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq., CAL. CIV.
CODE § 1750, et seq., TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41 et seq., and FLA. STAT. § 501.204,
et seq., and the substantially similar laws of the following states:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

47

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 48 of 139

148.

Plaintiffs Olson, Lopez, Barber, Clifford, and Liptak, on behalf of the Nationwide

Class, seek certification of claims against all Defendants fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence
in violations of the laws of Massachusetts, California, Texas and Florida, and the substantially
similar laws of the following states:
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
149.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Nationwide Class, seeks certification of a claim against

Defendant Houston Astros for violation of the TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41 et seq.
150.

Plaintiff Olson, on behalf of the Massachusetts Subclass, seeks certification of

claims against Defendants MLB, MLBAM and Boston Red Sox for violation of the M ASS. GEN.
LAW, Ch. 93A, § 1, et seq., and against all Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment and
negligence.
151.

Plaintiff Lopez, on behalf of the California Subclass, seeks certification of claims

against Defendants MLB and MLBAM for violations of C AL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et
seq., CAL. CIV. CODE § 1750, et seq., and against all Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment and
negligence.
152.

Plaintiff Barber, on behalf of the Texas Subclass, seeks certification of claims

against Defendants MLB and MLBAM for violation of TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41 et
seq., and against all Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence.

48

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 49 of 139

153.

Plaintiff Clifford, on behalf of the Florida Subclass, seeks certification of claims

against Defendants MLB and MLBAM for violation of FLA. STAT. § 501.204, et seq, and against
and against all Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence.
154.

Plaintiff Liptak, on behalf of the Colorado Subclass, seeks certification of claims

against Defendants MLB and MLBAM for violations of C OLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-101, et seq.,
and against all Defendants for fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence.
155.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to expand, narrow or otherwise modify or refine the

definition of the Classes based on additional information obtained through further investigation
and discovery, and/or in order to accommodate any of the Court’s manageability concerns.
156.

All Defendants concealed the existence of their conduct. Plaintiffs and the

members of the Classes were unaware of the facts alleged herein without any fault or lack of
diligence on their part and could not have reasonably discovered Defendants’ conduct. For this
reason, any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply should be tolled to the earliest date
of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. In addition, Defendants are estopped from relying on any
applicable statute of limitation.
157.

Numerosity. Members of the Classes are so numerous (consisting of millions of

DraftKings users) and geographically dispersed that individual joinder is impracticable.
Beginning no later than 2017, DraftKings operated in 43 states as well as the District of
Columbia and collected entry fees for millions of entries purchased in states other than New
York. Data published by The Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association establishes that in 2017 and
subsequent years covered by this lawsuit there were more than 50 million fantasy sports players
of which approximately 39% participated in fantasy sports baseball. 85 Published data specific to

85

Industry Demographics, FANTASY SPORTS & GAMING ASSOC., https://thefsga.org/industry-demographics/
(accessed Feb. 13, 2020).

49

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 50 of 139

DraftKings shows that in May 2018, DraftKings had approximately 19 million contestant entries,
generating approximately $137 million in wagering handle and $14 million in revenue, with
daily fantasy baseball responsible for 9.5 million of those entries. 86
158.

The members of the Class are readily identifiable from information and records in

the possession, custody or control of MLB, and/or in the possession, custody or control of the
MLB Defendants’ joint venture partner, DraftKings.
159.

Commonality and Predominance. Common questions of law and fact exist as to

all members of the Classes, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members of the Classes, including, but not limited to:
a. Whether the MLB Defendants engaged in false, misleading, deceptive
and/or unfair acts or practices;
b. Whether the MLB Defendants violated state consumer protection statutes;
c. Whether the MLB Defendants made material omissions and/or
misrepresentations;
d. Whether the MLB Defendants’ conduct constituted fraud.
e. Whether the MLB Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for
compromising the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS contests;
f. Whether the MLB Defendants’ conduct constituted negligence;
g. Whether the Houston Astros are liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for
compromising the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS contests;
h. Whether the Houston Astros engaged in false, misleading, deceptive
and/or unfair acts or practices;
i. Whether the Houston Astros violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act;

86

Eric Ramsey, DraftKings, FanDuel Generated About $220 Million In Entry Fees In May, LEGAL SPORTS REPORT
(June 7, 2018), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/20932/daily-fantasy-sports-data-may-2018/ (accessed Feb. 13,
2020).

50

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 51 of 139

j. Whether the Houston Astros made material omissions and/or
misrepresentations;
k. Whether the Houston Astros’ conduct constituted fraud.
l. Whether the Houston Astros’ conduct constituted negligence
m. Whether the Boston Red Sox are liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for
compromising the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS contests;
n. Whether the Boston Red Sox engaged in false, misleading, deceptive
and/or unfair acts or practices;
o. Whether the Boston Red Sox violated the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act;
p. Whether the Boston Red Sox made material omissions and/or
misrepresentations;
q. Whether the Boston Red Sox’ conduct constituted fraud.
r. Whether the Boston Red Sox’ conduct constituted negligence
s. Whether the MLB Defendants, the Houston Astros and the Boston Red
Sox have been unjustly enriched by their conduct;
t. Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to actual damages, statutory
damages and/or punitive damages, and the measure of those damages;
u. Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to restitution, disgorgement
and/or other equitable relief or injunctive relief.
160.

Typicality. The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the

Classes. Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes were injured through the same conduct
described herein and they assert the same (or similar) claims for relief.
161.

Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the Classes. The interests of Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the
interests of the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have lost significant amounts
individually and have agreed to act for the benefit of all of the victims similarly situated and not
to put their individual interests ahead of any member of the Classes. Plaintiffs have retained
51

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 52 of 139

competent counsel that is highly experienced in prosecuting complex fraud, consumer, and class
action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Classes.
162.

Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes. The
damages suffered by individual members of the Classes are relatively small compared to the
burden and expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendants. It would be
extremely difficult for members of the Classes, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress
for the wrongs committed against them. Further, even if members of the Classes could afford
such individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create
the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts.
Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court
system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class action device provides the
benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and
comprehensive supervision by a single court.
163.

This proposed class action is manageable. Plaintiffs know of no special difficulty

to be encountered in the maintenance of the action that would preclude its maintenance as a class
action.
164.

Class certification, therefore, is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3)

because the above common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting
individual members of the Classes, and a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.
165.

Class certification is also appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(1), because the

prosecution of separate actions by numerous individual members of the Classes may create a risk

52

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 53 of 139

that inconsistent or varying adjudications would establish incompatible standards of conduct for
the parties opposing the Classes, and may substantially impair or impede the interests of other
members of the Classes to protect their interests.
166.

Class certification is also appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2) because

Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, so that
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate as to the Classes as a
whole.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COMMON LAW FRAUD
(Against the MLB Defendants)
167.

Paragraphs 1 through 167 of this Complaint are incorporated herein as if fully set

168.

As set forth above, during the time period relevant herein, MLB Commissioner

forth.

Manfred made repeated public statements – in interviews, press releases and presentations to
state governments – representing that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game of
baseball was MLB’s most important priority and committing MLB to protecting the integrity and
honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate safeguards were in
place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair.
169.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were made as the authorized

spokesperson of MLB, on behalf of MLB and each of its member Clubs, and on behalf of
MLBAM, and were approved by each of MLB’s member teams and by MLBAM.
170.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure the public

that Major League Baseball was honestly and fairly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to
53

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 54 of 139

insure the continued honesty and fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative
action to prevent any dishonest or unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any
MLB teams or players engaging in dishonest or unfair conduct.
171.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure DraftKings’

MLB DFS contestants that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions were honestly and fairly
conducted.
172.

MLB’s member teams agreed that Manfred would serve as their spokesperson on

these matters and ratified and approved Manfred’s representations and commitments.
173.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring the public

in general, and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that Major League Baseball was
fairly and honestly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to insure the continued honesty and
fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative action to prevent any dishonest or
unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any MLB teams or players engaging in
dishonest or unfair conduct.
174.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contestants that DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were fairly and
honestly conducted and that MLB would not condone or knowingly allow any conduct by MLB
teams or players that would compromise or corrupt the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests.
175.

Manfred’s representations that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game

of baseball was MLB’s most important priority and his commitments that MLB would protect
the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate

54

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 55 of 139

safeguards were in place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair, were
false.
176.

To the contrary, Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs placed their desire to protect

their financial interests from the adverse publicity and financial detriments that would result
from investigation, remedial action and disclosure of member Club electronic sign stealing above
maintaining the integrity of the game of baseball, and for that reason did not properly act to
terminate, prevent and disclose member Club electronic sign stealing that violated MLB rules
and regulations.
177.

As set forth above, the Astros made repeated statements in 2017, 2018 and 2019

asserting that the team’s players’ performance success was the result of player talent or other
legitimate baseball factors.
178.

The Astros’ statements were made in the Astros’ capacity as a constituent

member Club of defendant MLB and were made in furtherance of the interests of defendant
MLB, and no other MLB member team publicly disavowed the Astros’ statements.
179.

The Astros’ statements were made in the Astros’ capacity as an owner or partner

of defendant MLBAM and were made in furtherance of the interests of defendant MLBAM, and
no other owner or partner of MLBAM publicly disavowed the Astros’ statements.
180.

The Astros’ statements that Astros’ players’ performance success was the result

of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors statements were false.
181.

The Astros’ statements that the Astros’ players’ performance success was the

result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to cause the public,
including DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants, to believe that Astros’ players were performing
well for legitimate baseball reasons.

55

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 56 of 139

182.

The Astros’ statements that the Astros’ players’ performance success was the

result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to conceal from the
public, including from DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that defendant Astros
was engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations and that
Astros’ player performance success was the result of such cheating.
183.

As set forth above, the Red Sox made repeated statements in 2017 and 2018

asserting that the team’s players’ performance success was the result of player talent or other
legitimate baseball factors.
184.

The Red Sox’s statements were made in the Red Sox’s capacity as a constituent

member Club of defendant MLB and were made in furtherance of the interests of defendant
MLB, and no other MLB member team publicly disavowed the Red Sox’s statements.
185.

The Red Sox’s statements were made in the Red Sox’s capacity as an owner or

partner of defendant MLBAM and were made in furtherance of the interests of defendant
MLBAM, and no other owner or partner of MLBAM publicly disavowed the Red Sox’s
statements.
186.

The Red Sox’s statements that the Red Sox’s players’ performance success was

the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors statements were false.
187.

The Red Sox’s statements that the Red Sox’s players’ performance success was

the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to cause the public,
including DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants, to believe that Red Sox’s players were performing
well for legitimate baseball reasons.
188.

The Red Sox’s statements that the Red Sox’s players’ performance success was

the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to conceal from the

56

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 57 of 139

public, including from DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that defendant Red Sox
was engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations and that Red
Sox’s player performance success was the result of such cheating.
189.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs knew that defendant Astros was unfairly and

dishonestly engaging in electronic sign stealing, undermining the integrity, honesty and fairness
of Major League baseball contests, but knowingly determined not to take action to stop such
electronic sign stealing and not to disclose the Astros’ cheating to the public.
190.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs knew it was likely that other Major League

Clubs were unfairly and dishonestly engaging in electronic sign stealing, undermining the
integrity, honesty and fairness of Major League baseball contests, but knowingly determined not
to take action to stop such electronic sign stealing or disclose such cheating to the public.
191.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs determined to allow such cheating because

they feared the negative public reaction and adverse financial consequences that would result
from public disclosure of such electronic sign stealing.
192.

At all times mentioned herein, the MLB Defendants were equity owners of, and in

partnership with DraftKings and, pursuant to their financial relationship and partnership with
DraftKings agreed to and did actively promote and market DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests and
financially benefitted from the success of DraftKings.
193.

At all times mentioned herein, the MLB Defendants acted in partnership or as

joint venturers to promote and market and facilitate their equity ownership in and partnership
with DraftKings.
194.

At all times mentioned herein, Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs, including the

Astros and the Red Sox, were acting on behalf of and as agents of MLBAM in furtherance of

57

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 58 of 139

MLB’s and MLBAM’s partnership or joint venture, and the false statements by MLB and the
Astros and Red Sox set forth herein were issued on behalf of and as agents of MLBAM in
furtherance of the MLB Defendants’ partnership or joint venture.
195.

At all times mentioned herein, the MLB Defendants’ promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant MLB’s and MLBAM), with the
knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of MLB player
performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their impermissible
electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting the accuracy
of such statistics, imposed a duty on the MLB Defendants to disclose their knowledge of such
impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and corrupted player
performance statistics.
196.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
197.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs, including the Astros and Red Sox, were

aware that electronic sign stealing compromised and corrupted the player performance statistics
upon which the fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests depended.

58

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 59 of 139

198.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs concealed the electronic sign stealing being

engaged in by MLB Clubs even though they were aware that such electronic sign stealing
compromised and corrupted DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests.
199.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs actively promoted wagering in DraftKings’

MLB DFS contests and helped to market such contests, knowing that the fairness of the contests
was compromised and corrupted by the electronic sign stealing being engaged in by MLB Clubs.
200.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs were aware that members of the public were

relying on the false statements by Manfred, the Astros and the Red Sox set forth herein in
deciding to participate in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests.
201.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs were aware that members of the public

would not engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests if they knew that electronic sign stealing by
the Astros, the Red Sox or other MLB Clubs was compromising and corrupting the player
performance statistics upon which the fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests depended.
202.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs were aware that their investment in

DraftKings would be substantially impaired if the public learned that electronic sign stealing by
the Astros, the Red Sox and other MLB Clubs was compromising and corrupting the player
performance statistics upon which the fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests depended.
203.

Manfred and MLB’s member Clubs allowed electronic sign stealing to continue

and to remain undisclosed to further the financial interests of the MLB Defendants, including
their financial interests in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests and their investment in DraftKings.
204.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, the MLB Defendants

intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about MLB

59

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 60 of 139

Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019 continued
to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
205.

The MLB Defendants intended, by their conduct described above, to deceive

members of the public – including Plaintiffs and the Classes to whom they were promoting and
marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions – into
believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player performance statistics.
206.

The MLB Defendants’ concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible

electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball participating public with
respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and other DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
207.

The MLB Defendants’ intentional failure to disclose material information to

Plaintiffs and the Classes engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions (and the
public) was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material information that members
of the public, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, would reasonably and justifiably rely upon in
deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
208.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by the MLB Defendants’ intentional failure to disclose
material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing
and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to such
competitions.
209.

Plaintiffs and the Classes reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and
commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the Red Sox set forth

60

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 61 of 139

herein, which were rendered false by the MLB Defendants’ intentional failure to disclose
material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing
and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to such
competitions.
210.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by the MLB Defendants’ material omissions and false
representations, and would not have done so had they known of such material omissions.
211.

As a direct and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ fraudulent statements

and conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNFAIR/DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION STATUTES
(Against the MLB Defendants)
212.

Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference the above allegations.

A. Common Allegations
213.

Each of the following allegations in this subheading are alleged and incorporated

by reference into the allegations in each State’s or States’ subheading as to such State’s or States’
consumer protection statutes.
214.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants have engaged in false, misleading,

deceptive and unfair acts and practices that violated State laws.
215.

The MLB Defendants have been and are engaged in trade and commerce as

defined by the respective State consumer protection acts. Major League Baseball is broadcast,
advertised and promoted, and sales of merchandise take place, throughout the United States; and
professional baseball games are held in states throughout the United States. In addition, daily
61

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 62 of 139

fantasy sports participants reside throughout the United States. Defendant MLB is engaged in
business on behalf of its constituent members teams and Major League Baseball in every State,
and defendant MLBAM’s internet and interactive services are likewise provided throughout the
country. Moreover, defendant MLBAM is responsible for coordinating the partnership between
DraftKings and Major League Baseball and its teams, and does so throughout the country.
216.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants have had an ownership interest in

DraftKings, and have promoted their partnership with DraftKings and participated in soliciting
participants in DraftKings’ MLB DFS fantasy baseball contests.
217.

In addition, at all material times, the MLB Defendants have realized substantial

financial gain through their partnership with DraftKings, based on the MLB Defendants’ equity
interest in, sponsorship, advertising and promotion with and through DraftKings.
218.

Fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to the MLB Defendants. Not only did the MLB Defendants have a financial
interest in the fees paid by DraftKings baseball fantasy participants, and receive revenue from
DraftKings’ sponsorship and advertising, but increased fantasy baseball participation also
significantly increased viewership, attendance, and general interest in Major League Baseball,
resulting in greater revenue for the MLB Defendants from broadcasting, advertising, attendance
and the sale of merchandise and paraphernalia.
219.

Thus, it was and is in the MLB Defendants’ interest to heavily promote

DraftKings and to provide DraftKings with sponsorship, advertising and promotional
opportunities with the MLB Defendants, which the MLB Defendants did at all material times,
even while knowing that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests were compromised and unfair as
a result of MLB’s member teams’ misconduct, i.e., the electronic sign stealing schemes.

62

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 63 of 139

220.

At the same time the MLB Defendants were promoting DraftKings and

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests, the MLB Defendants knew of and failed to stop the
electronic sign stealing schemes described above, which resulted compromised and dishonest
MLB player performance statistics, rendering the fantasy baseball contests in which Plaintiff and
the Class participated corrupt and tainted.
221.

Further, the MLB Defendants affirmatively concealed and failed to disclose the

electronic sign stealing misconduct of the Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox even though the
MLB Defendants knew that such misconduct compromised the honesty and fairness of the
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests they were separately promoting.
222.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the

fact that the Major League Baseball games involving the Houston Astros and the Boston Red
Sox resulted in compromised and dishonest player performance statistics.
223.

The MLB Defendants’ conduct in promoting wagering on DraftKings MLB DFS

contests with knowledge that its member teams are compromising the honesty and integrity of
those contests, and without taking reasonable steps to prevent or remedy its member teams’
misconduct or disclose the compromised nature of the fantasy contests, as alleged herein,
constitutes unfair and deceptive practices, conduct which violates the state consumer protection
acts described below.
224.

As a result of their conduct, the MLB Defendants have engaged in unfair,

deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices in violation of the state consumer protection
acts listed below.
225.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ unfair,

deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices, in violation of the state consumer protection

63

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 64 of 139

statutes, Plaintiffs and the Classes were injured – and continue to be injured – and have

suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money wagered
on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
226.

The MLB Defendants’ wrongful conduct was wanton, willful or in reckless

disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Classes. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and

the Classes are entitled to all available damages and remedies available under the consumer
protections statutes identified below, including, without limitation, applicable actual
damages, statutory damages, injunctive or other equitable relief, costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees. Further, because the MLB Defendants acted willfully or knowingly, Plaintiffs
and the Classes, as applicable, are entitled to recover up to three times their actual damages, or
additional punitive or exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees.
B.

Massachusetts
227.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

228.

Plaintiff Olson, a resident of Massachusetts, asserts this Claim under

Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, M.G.L. c. 93A et seq. (“MCPL”) against the MLB
Defendants on behalf of the Massachusetts Subclass. Upon information and belief, MLB
Defendants do not maintain a place of business in Massachusetts; nor do MLB Defendants
maintain property or assets in Massachusetts. Plaintiff is thus not required to provide MLB
Defendants with pre-suit written demand for relief pursuant to M.G.L 93A § 9(3).
229.

Massachusetts prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of

any trade or commerce ….” M.G.L. c. 93A § 2 et seq.
230.

The MLB Defendants are engaged in “trade or commerce” pursuant to M.G.L. c.

93A § 1.

64

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 65 of 139

231.

Any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of the Massachusetts

Act may bring an action based on the MLB Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts and
practices.
232.

The MLB Defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair acts and practices,

misrepresentations, and the concealment, suppression and omission of material facts in violation
of M.G.L. c. 93A et seq. as alleged at length above and in the following ways.
233.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),
with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of
MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.
234.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
235.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about

65

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 66 of 139

MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
236.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiffs and the Classes to whom they were
promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
237.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball
participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
238.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiffs and the Classes (and the public) engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material
information that members of the public, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, would reasonably
and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions.
239.

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Classes were induced to, and did,

participate in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and
MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and
players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance
statistic information material to such competitions.

66

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 67 of 139

240.

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied in

participating in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements,
representations and commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the
Red Sox set forth herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure
to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic
sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to
such competitions.
241.

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass were induced to, and did,

participate in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and
MLBAM’s material omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they
known of such material omissions.
242.

The MLB Defendants’ conduct in promoting wagering on DraftKings MLB DFS

contests with knowledge that its member teams are compromising the honesty and integrity of
those contests, and without taking reasonable steps to prevent or remedy its member teams’
misconduct or disclose the compromised nature of the fantasy contests, as alleged herein,
constitutes unfair and deceptive practices, conduct which violates M.G.L. c. 93A et seq..
243.

As a result of their conduct, the MLB Defendants have engaged in unfair,

deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.
244.

The MLB Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts and practices were immoral,

unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous, and caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff Olson
Massachusetts Subclass, were not outweighed by the any countervailing benefits to consumers or
competition, and the injury could not reasonably have been avoided. Further, the acts and

67

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 68 of 139

practices were within the penumbra of common law, statutory or other established concepts of
unfairness.
245.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ unfair,

deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices, Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts

Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and have suffered ascertainable loss
and damages, including, without limitation, the money wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and
dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
246.

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass members seek relief under M.G.L.

c. 93A§ 9, including, without limitation, actual damages, statutory damages, double or treble
damages, injunctive and/or other equitable relief, and/or attorneys’ fees and costs.
C.

California
247.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

248.

Plaintiff Lopez, a resident of California, asserts this Claim under Cal Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200 et seq., against the MLB Defendants on behalf of the California Subclass.
249.

The MLB Defendants operate in California and have violated Cal Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200 et seq., by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and
practices, and unfair, deceptive, untrue and/or misleading conduct that constitutes acts of “unfair
competition” as defined in Cal Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., with respect to the California
Subclass as alleged at length above and in the following ways.
250.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),
with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of

68

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 69 of 139

MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.
251.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
252.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about
MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
253.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiffs and the Classes to whom they were
promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
254.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball

69

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 70 of 139

participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
255.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiffs and the Classes (and the public) engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material
information that members of the public, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, would reasonably
and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions.
256.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were induced to, and did, participate

in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s
intentional failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’
impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic
information material to such competitions.
257.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied in

participating in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements,
representations and commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the
Red Sox set forth herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure
to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic
sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to
such competitions.
258.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were induced to, and did, participate

in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s material

70

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 71 of 139

omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they known of such
material omissions.
259.

The MLB Defendants’ acts were fraudulent and unfair, in that Plaintiff Lopez and

the California Subclass were likely to be deceived – and were deceived – by the MLB
Defendants’ conduct, which caused Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass to incur injury by
wagering on DraftKings MLB DFS contests.
260.

The MLB Defendants’ unfair acts and practices were immoral, unethical,

oppressive, unscrupulous, and caused substantial injury to Plaintiff Lopez and the California
Subclass, were not outweighed by the any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition,
and the injury could not reasonably have been avoided. Further, the acts and practices were
within the penumbra of common law, statutory or other established concepts of unfairness.
261.

The MLB Defendants’ acts and practices were also unlawful, in that they violated

the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, § 1750 et seq., as set forth below.
262.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ unfair,

deceptive and unlawful acts and practices, Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were

injured – and continue to be injured – and have suffered ascertainable loss and damages,
including, without limitation, the money wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest
fantasy baseball competitions.
263.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass seek relief under Cal Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200 et seq., including, without limitation, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory relief,
injunctive and/or other equitable relief, and/or attorneys’ fees and costs.

71

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 72 of 139

D.

California
264.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

265.

Plaintiff Lopez intends to assert a claim under the California Consumer Legal

Remedies Act, Cal Civil. Code § 1750 et seq., (“CLRA”). The MLB Defendants were
previously provided with a written demand for relief in accordance with CLRA § 1782(a). This
Count provides notice to the MLB Defendants of the prospective claim. Subject to the response,
if any, by the MLB Defendants within 30 days of the notice, Plaintiff Lopez, on behalf of himself
and the Class, shall amend the Complaint to include this Claim for Relief and demand all
appropriate relief.
266.

Plaintiff Lopez, a resident of California, asserts this Claim under CLRA § 1750 et

seq., against the MLB Defendants on behalf of the California Subclass.The MLB Defendants
operate in California and have violated Cal Bus. & Prof. Code § 1770, by engaging in proscribed
conduct, inter alia: “Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods
and services.” (§ 1770(a)(2)); “Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have….” (§
1770(a)(5)); “Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade,
or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.” (§ 1770(a)(7)); and
“Representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations that it does
not have or involve, or that are prohibited by law.” (§ 1770(a)(14)). The MLB Defendants
engaged in this conduct as alleged at length above and in the following ways.
267.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),

72

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 73 of 139

with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of
MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.
268.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
269.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about
MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
270.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiffs and the Classes to whom they were
promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
271.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball

73

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 74 of 139

participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
272.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiffs and the Classes (and the public) engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material
information that members of the public, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, would reasonably
and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions.
273.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were induced to, and did, participate

in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s
intentional failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’
impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic
information material to such competitions.
274.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied in

participating in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements,
representations and commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the
Red Sox set forth herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure
to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic
sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to
such competitions.
275.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were induced to, and did, participate

in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s material

74

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 75 of 139

omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they known of such
material omissions.
276.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ conduct,

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and

have suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money
wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
277.

Plaintiff Lopez and the California Subclass seek relief under CLRA § 1750 et

seq., including, without limitation, damages, restitution, injunctive relief or other equitable relief
as applicable, punitive damages as applicable, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
E.

Texas
278.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

279.

Plaintiff Barber intends to assert a claim under the Texas Deceptive Trade

Practices Act (“TDTPA”) against the MLB Defendants. Written notice of the specific complaint
and damages was previously provided to MLB Defendants in accordance with T EX. BUS. & COM.
CODE § 17.505. This Claim for Relief provides notice to the MLB Defendants of the prospective
claims alleged herein. Subject to the response, if any, by the MLB Defendants within 60 days of
the notice, Plaintiff Barber, on behalf of himself and the Texas Subclass, shall amend the
Complaint to include this Claim and demand all appropriate relief under the TDTPA.
280.

Plaintiff Barber, a resident of Texas, asserts this Claim for false, misleading and

deceptive acts and practices in violation of TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.
281.

The TDTPA makes it unlawful to commit “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts

or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” T EX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46.

75

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 76 of 139

282.

Any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of the TDTPA may

bring an action based on those misleading, false, deceptive and/or unfair acts.
283.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants, which are engaged in trade or

commerce pursuant to TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46, engaged in misleading, false, deceptive
and/or unfair acts that violated the TDTPA as alleged at length above and in the following ways.
284.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),
with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of
MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.
285.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
286.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about

76

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 77 of 139

MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
287.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass to whom they
were promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
288.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball
participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
289.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass (and the public) engaging in DraftKings’
MLB DFS wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material
information that members of the public, including Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass,
would reasonably and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’
MLB DFS wagering competitions.
290.

Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional
failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible
electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information
material to such competitions.

77

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 78 of 139

291.

Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied in

participating in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements,
representations and commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the
Red Sox set forth herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure
to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic
sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to
such competitions.
292.

Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s material
omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they known of such
material omissions.
293.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ deceptive,

misleading, and/or false acts or practices, in violation of T EX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.,

Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and have
suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money wagered
on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
294.

The MLB Defendants’ wrongful conduct was wanton, willful or in reckless

disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass.
295.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass are

entitled to all available damages and remedies available under TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §
17.41 et seq., including, without limitation, actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive or

other equitable relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Further, because the MLB
Defendants acted willfully or knowingly, Plaintiff Barber and the Texas Subclass are entitled to

78

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 79 of 139

recover up to three times their actual damages, or additional punitive or exemplary damages and
attorneys’ fees as applicable under the TDTPA.
F.

Florida
296.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

297.

Plaintiff Clifford, a resident of Florida, asserts this Claim under the Florida

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (“FDUTPA”) against the
MLB Defendants on behalf of himself and the Florida Subclass.
298.

Florida law prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or

practices and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce ….”
Fla. Stat. § 501.204. The MLB Defendants are engaged in “trade or commerce” in the State of
Florida under Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.
299.

The MLB Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable

acts or practices, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204.,
as alleged at length above and in the following ways.
300.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),
with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of
MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.

79

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 80 of 139

301.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
302.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about
MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
303.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass to whom
they were promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
304.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball
participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
305.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass (and the public) engaging in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public
with material information that members of the public, including Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida

80

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 81 of 139

Subclass, would reasonably and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
306.

Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional
failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible
electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information
material to such competitions.
307.

The MLB Defendants’ conduct was likely to mislead – and did mislead – Plaintiff

Clifford and the Florida Subclass, who reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and
commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the Red Sox set forth
herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose
material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing
and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to such
competitions.
308.

Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s material
omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they known of such
material omissions.
309.

In addition, the MLB Defendants engaged in unfair practices that offend

established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or
substantially injurious to consumers.

81

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 82 of 139

310.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ unfair,

deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices in violation Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.,
Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and

have suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money
wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
311.

Plaintiff Clifford and the Florida Subclass seek relief pursuant to Fla. Stat. §

501.201 et seq. for actual, attorneys’ fees and all other applicable relief.
G.

Colorado
312.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

313.

Plaintiff Liptak, a resident of Colorado, asserts this Claim under Colo. Rev. Stats.

§ 6-1-101 et seq. (“CRS”), against the MLB Defendants on behalf of the Colorado Subclass.
314.

The MLB Defendants operate in Colorado and have engaged in deceptive, unfair,

and unlawful trade acts or practices in the course of the MLB Defendants’ business in violation
of CRS § 6-1-105(1) by, inter alia:
(b) Knowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the source, sponsorship,
approval, or certification of goods, services, or property;
(e) Knowingly mak[ing] a false representation as to the characteristics,
ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods, food, services, or
property….;
(g) Represent[ing] that goods, food, services, or property are of a particular
standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model…;
(i) Advertis[ing] goods, services, or property with intent not to sell them as
advertised; and
(u) Fail[ing] to disclose material information concerning goods, services, or
property which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if
such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to
enter into a transaction.

82

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 83 of 139

315.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant MLB’s and MLBAM’s promotion and

marketing and participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendants MLB and MLBAM),
with the knowledge that the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of
MLB player performance statistics, and with the knowledge that MLB Clubs, through their
impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations, were corrupting
the accuracy of such statistics, imposed a duty on defendants MLB and MLBAM to disclose
their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted and
corrupted player performance statistics.
316.

In addition, given Manfred’s and the MLB Defendants’ public statements about

ensuring the honesty and integrity of the game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, and the statements by the Astros and the Red
Sox about the basis and legitimacy of their players’ performance, the MLB Defendants had a
duty to disclose their knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
317.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendants MLB and

MLBAM intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about
MLB Clubs’ and players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct and even after November 2019
continued to misrepresent the extent and involvement of MLB Clubs in such misconduct.
318.

Defendants MLB and MLBAM intended, by their conduct described above, to

deceive members of the public – including Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass to whom they
were promoting and marketing and inducing to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering

83

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 84 of 139

competitions – into believing that such competitions were based on fair and honest player
performance statistics.
319.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s concealment of MLB Clubs’ and players’

impermissible electronic sign stealing conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball
participating public with respect to the player performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and
other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering contestants in entering into such contests.
320.

Defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure to disclose material

information to Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass (and the public) engaging in DraftKings’
MLB DFS wagering competitions was in breach of their duty to provide the public with material
information that members of the public, including Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass, would
reasonably and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB
DFS wagering competitions.
321.

Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional
failure to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible
electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information
material to such competitions.
322.

Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass reasonably and justifiably relied in

participating in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements,
representations and commitments by Manfred (and the MLB Defendants), and the Astros and the
Red Sox set forth herein, which were rendered false by MLB’s and MLBAM’s intentional failure
to disclose material information concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic

84

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 85 of 139

sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player performance statistic information material to
such competitions.
323.

Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass were induced to, and did, participate in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants MLB’s and MLBAM’s material
omissions and false representations, and would not have done so had they known of such
material omissions.
324.

The MLB Defendants’ acts and practices were immoral, unethical, oppressive,

and unscrupulous, caused substantial injury to consumers that could not reasonably be avoided,
and this substantial injury outweighed any benefits to consumers or competition.
325.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ conduct,

Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and have

suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money wagered
on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
326.

Plaintiff Liptak the Colorado Subclass seek relief under CRS § 6-1-101 et seq.,

including, without limitation, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, penalties,
injunctive relief or other equitable relief as applicable, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
H.

Nationwide
327.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference herein the above allegations.

328.

Plaintiffs Olson, Lopez, Barber, Clifford, and Liptak, on behalf themselves and

the Nationwide Class, assert these Claims under MASS. GEN. LAW, Ch. 93A, § 1 et seq., CAL.
BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq., CAL. CIV. CODE § 1750, et seq., TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE
ANN. § 17.41 et seq., and FLA. STAT. § 501.204, et seq., § 501.204, et seq., CRS § 6-1-101 et
seq., and under the substantially similar State consumer protection statutes.

85

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 86 of 139

329.

As alleged above, the MLB Defendants have been and are engaged in trade and

commerce as defined by the foregoing consumer protection statutes of Massachusetts, California,
Texas, Florida, and Colorado, and as defined under the following State consumer protection
statutes described below. Major League Baseball is broadcast, advertised and promoted, and
sales of merchandise take place, throughout the United States; and professional baseball games
are held in states throughout the United States. In addition, daily fantasy sports participants
reside throughout the United States. Defendant MLB is engaged in business on behalf of its
constituent members teams and Major League Baseball in every State including Massachusetts,
and defendant MLBAM’s internet and interactive services are likewise provided throughout the
country, including in Massachusetts. Moreover, defendant MLBAM is responsible for
coordinating the partnership between DraftKings and Major League Baseball and its team, and
does so throughout the country, including in Massachusetts where DraftKings has its principal
place of business.
330.

As a result of their conduct, the MLB Defendants have engaged in deceptive,

misleading, false, and/or unfair acts or practices in violation of the foregoing consumer
protection statutes and the state consumer protection acts listed below.
331.

Like Massachusetts, California, Florida, and Colorado, a significant number of

states’ consumer protection statutes closely track the language of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (“FTCA”), proscribing “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce[.]” 15
U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). The following states have consumer protection statutes that prohibit unfair
and/or deceptive acts or practices:

86

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 87 of 139

Alaska: ALASKA STAT. § 45.50.471, et seq. provides that “unfair methods of competition
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce are declared to be
unlawful.”
Connecticut: CONN. GEN. STAT. § 42-110b, et seq. provides that “[n]o person shall
engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Georgia: OFFICIAL CODE OF GA. § 10-1-390, et seq. provides that “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transaction and consumer acts or
practices in trade or commerce are declared unlawful.”
Hawaii: HAW. REV. STAT. § 480, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.”
Illinois: ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/1, et seq. and § 510/1, et seq. provides “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices . . . in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby
declared unlawful.”
Iowa: IOWA CODE § 714.16, et seq. prohibits any “practice or act the person knows or
reasonably should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, or false
promise, or the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a material
fact, with the intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud, false
pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise…”
Kentucky: KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 367.110, et seq. prohibits “[u]nfair, false, misleading
or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce”
Louisiana: LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 51.1405, et seq. provides that “[u]nfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
Maine: ME. REV. STAT. TIT. 5, § 205-A, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful.”
Maryland: MD. CODE ANN., MD COM. LAW § 13-101, et seq. provides that [a] person
may not engage in any unfair or deceptive trade practice, as defined in this subtitle or as
further defined by the Division, in: (1) The sale . . . of any consumer goods.”
Michigan: MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.901, et seq. prohibits “[u]nfair, unconscionable, or
deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce…”
Mississippi: MISS. CODE. ANN. § 75-24-1, et seq. prohibits “[u]nfair methods of
competition affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive trade practices in or affecting
commerce.”
87

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 88 of 139

Missouri: MO REV. STAT. § 407.010, et seq. makes unlawful the “act, use or
employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, misrepresentation,
unfair practice, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in
connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise…”
Montana: MONT. CODE ANN. § 30-14-101, et seq. provides that “[u]nfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce are unlawful.”
Nebraska: NEB. REV. STAT. § 59-1601, et seq., § 87-301, et seq. provides that “unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce shall be unlawful.”
New Hampshire: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 358-A:1, et seq. provides that “[i]t shall be
unlawful for any person to use . . . any unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct
of any trade or commerce within this state.”
New Mexico: N.M. STAT. ANN. § 57-12-1, et seq. prohibits the “[u]nfair or deceptive
trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce are unlawful.”
North Carolina: NC GEN. STAT. § 75-1.1, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.”
Ohio: OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 1345.01, et seq. provides that [n]o supplier shall commit
an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an
unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs
before, during, or after the transaction.”
Oklahoma: OKLA. STAT. TIT. 15, § 751, et seq. provides that [a] person engages in a
practice which is declared to be unlawful under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.
. . when, in the course of the person’s business, the person: . . . (20) Commits an unfair or
deceptive trade practice…”
Pennsylvania: 73 PA. STAT ANN. § 201-1, et seq. prohibits “[u]nfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce…”
Rhode Island: R.I. GEN LAWS § 6-13.1-1, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful.”
South Carolina: S.C. CODE § 39-5-10, et seq. provides that “[u]nfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce declared unlawful.”

88

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 89 of 139

Tennessee: TENN. CODE ANN. § 47-18-104, et seq. prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or
practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
Vermont: VT. STAT. ANN. TIT. 9, § 2451, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.”
Washington: REV. CODE WA. § 19.86.010, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
West Virginia: W. VA. CODE § 46A-6-104, et seq. provides that “unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
Wisconsin: WIS. STAT. § 100.20, et seq. prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition in
business and unfair trade practices in business.”
Wyoming: WYO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-101, et seq. provides that “[a] person engages in a
deceptive trade practice unlawful under this act when, in the course of his business and in
connection with a consumer transaction, he knowingly: . . . (xv) Engages in unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.
332.

The statutes identified in the preceding paragraph provide consumers with a

private right of action for the MLB Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts or practices as alleged
above, and such acts or practices are unlawful under these substantially similar or identical
consumer protection and consumer fraud statutes set forth immediately above.
333.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class have asserted claims under the Georgia Fair

Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 (“GFBPA”), against MLB Defendants. Upon
information and belief, MLB Defendants do not maintain a place of business in Georgia, nor do
MLB Defendants maintain property or asserts in Georgia. Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class
have are thus not required to provide MLB Defendants with pre-suit written demand for relief
pursuant to O.C.G.A § 10-1-399(b).
334.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class intend to assert a claim under the Maine

Unfair Trade Practices Act (“MeUTPA”) against MLB Defendants. Plaintiff Olson previously
provided a written demand for relief describing the particular violations of MeUTPA to MLB

89

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 90 of 139

Defendants pursuant to ME. REV. STAT. § 212 TIT. 5 § 213(1-A). Subject to the response, if any,
of MLB Defendants within 30 days from notice, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
Nationwide Class, shall amend the Complaint to include a Claim for Relief pursuant to M E. REV.
STAT. § 212 TIT. 5 § 205-A, et seq. and demand all appropriate relief under the MeUTPA.
335.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class intend to assert a claim under the Mississippi

Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) against MLB Defendants. Plaintiffs and the Nationwide
Class intend, pursuant to MISS. CODE. ANN. § 75-24-15, to attempt to resolve his and the Class’
MCPA claims through an informal dispute resolution program approved by the Attorney
General. Subject to the outcome of the informal dispute resolution undertaking, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and the Nationwide Class, shall amend the Complaint to include a Claim
for Relief pursuant to MISS. CODE. ANN. § 75-24-1 et seq. and demand all appropriate relief
under the MCPA.
336.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class intend to assert a claim under the West

Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”) against MLB Defendants. Plaintiff
Olson previously provided MLB Defendants notice, in writing by certified mail, return receipt
requested, of the alleged violation pursuant to W. VA. CODE § 46A-6-106(c). Subject to the
response, if any, MLB Defendants within 20 days of the notice, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the Nationwide Class, shall amend the Complaint to include a Claim for Relief
pursuant to W. VA. CODE § 46A-6-104, et seq.
337.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class intend to assert a claim under the Wyoming

Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) against MLB Defendants. Plaintiff Olson previously
provided notice in writing to MLB Defendants of the nature of the violations of MCPA pursuant
to WYO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-109. The Claim for Relief under W YO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-101, et

90

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 91 of 139

seq. found below provides notice to MLB Defendants of the prospective claim against it by
Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class. Subject to the response, if any, of MLB Defendants within
15 days of the notice, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, shall amend the
Complaint to include a Claim for Relief pursuant to W YO. STAT. ANN. § 40-12-101, et seq. and
demand all appropriate relief under the WCPA.
338.

As a result of their conduct, the MLB Defendants have engaged in unfair and

deceptive acts or practices in violation of the foregoing state consumer protection statutes.
339.

In addition, a number of states’ consumer protection statutes broadly prohibit

false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices, but do not prohibit “unfair” practices. The
following states have consumer protection statutes that prohibit deceptive acts or practices but do
not prohibit “unfair” practices:
Alabama: ALA. CODE § 8-19-1, et seq. sets forth a list of twenty-six unlawful
trade practices and a catch-all provision that makes it unlawful to “engag[e] in
any other unconscionable, false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the
conduct of trade or commerce.”
Arkansas: ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-88-107, et seq. prohibits “[d]eceptive and
unconscionable trade practices,” which include but are not limited to, a list of
enumerated items, including “[e]ngaging in any other unconscionable, false, or
deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade [.]”
Delaware: DEL. CODE ANN. TITLE 6, § 2511, et seq. prohibits the “act, use or
employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,
misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material
fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission,
in connection with the sale, lease or advertisement of any merchandise, whether
or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.”
District of Columbia: D.C. CODE § 28-3901, et seq. provides that “[i]t shall be a
violation of this chapter…for any person to: . . . (e) misrepresent as to a material
fact which has a tendency to mislead” and “(t) use deceptive representations…in
connection with goods or services.”
Idaho: IDAHO CODE § 48-601, et seq. provides that “[t]he following … unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby
91

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 92 of 139

declared to be unlawful, where a person knows, or in the exercise of due care
should know, that he has in the past or is … [e]gaging in any act or practice which
is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer.” 87
Indiana: IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-1, et seq. provides protection to “consumers from
suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales acts…”
Kansas: KAN. STAT. § 50-623, et seq. provides that “[n]o supplier shall engage in
any deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction[;]”
Minnesota: MINN. STAT. § 325F.68, et seq. prohibits “[t]he act, use, or
employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise,
misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that
others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not
any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby …”
Nevada: NEV. REV. STAT. § 598.0903, et seq. provides that “[a] person engages
in a ‘deceptive trade practice’ if, in the course of his business or occupation, he: . .
. (13) Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the price of goods .
. . for sale. (15) Knowingly makes any other false representation in a transaction.”
New Jersey: N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1, et seq. provides that “[t]he act, use or
employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation . . . in
connection with the sale . . . of any merchandise . . . is declared to be an unlawful
practice.”
New York: N.Y. GEN. BUS. § 349, et seq., prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices
in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any
service.”
North Dakota: N.D. CENT. CODE § 51-15-01, et seq., prohibits “[t]he act, use, or
employment by any person of any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense,
false promise, or misrepresentation, with the intent that others rely thereon in
connection with the sale . . . of any merchandise . . .”
Oregon: OR REV. STAT. § 646.605, et seq. provides that: “[a] person engages in
an unlawful practice when in the course of the person’s business, vocation or
occupation the person does any of the following: . . . (s) Makes false or
misleading representations of fact concerning the offering price of, or the person’s
cost for . . . goods.”

87

While Idaho’s consumer protection statute refers to “unfair or deceptive acts or practices[,]”, the court in In re
Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 252 F.R.D. 83, 110 (D. Mass. 2008) excluded it from the list of
statutes that more closely track the FTC Act because the statute’s “general prohibition refers to an enumerated list of
prohibited practices, instead of simply prohibiting all unfair or deceptive practices.”

92

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 93 of 139

South Dakota: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 37-24-1, et seq. prohibits “deceptive acts
or practices”, which are defined to include: [k]nowingly and intentionally act, use,
or employ any deceptive act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promises, or
misrepresentation or to conceal, suppress, or omit any material fact in connection
with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, regardless of whether any
person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby.”
Utah: UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-1, et seq. prohibits “deceptive acts and practices
by a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction.” Specifically, “a supplier
commits a deceptive act or practice if the supplier knowingly or intentionally: “(b)
indicates that the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard,
quality, grade, style, or model, if it is not.” “An unconscionable act or practice by
a supplier in connection with a consumer transaction” also violates the Act.”
Virginia: VA. CODE Ann. § 59.1-196, et seq. makes unlawful certain “fraudulent
acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer
transaction,” including “[m]isrepresenting that goods or services are of a
particular standard, quality, grade style or model.”
340.

The statutes identified in the preceding paragraph provide consumers with a

private right of action for the MLB Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices, which are made
unlawful under those statutes. As a result of their conduct described above, the MLB Defendants
have violated these consumer statutes.
341.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class have asserted claims under the Alabama

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, A LA. CODE § 8-19-1, et seq. (“ADTPA”) against MLB
Defendants. Upon information and belief, MLB Defendants do not maintain a place of business
in Alabama, nor do MLB Defendants maintain property or asserts in Alabama. Plaintiffs and the
Nationwide Class are thus not required to provide MLB Defendants with pre-suit written demand
for relief pursuant to ALA. CODE § 8-19-10.
342.

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class intend to assert a claim under the Indiana

Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“IDCSA”) against MLB Defendants. Plaintiff Olson previously
provided notice of the nature of the alleged violation and damages suffered within six months of
the initial discovery of the deceptive act pursuant to IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-5(a). The Claim for
93

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 94 of 139

Relief under IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-1, et seq. provides notice to MLB Defendants of the
prospective claim against it. Subject to the response, if any, of MLB Defendants within 30 days
of the notice, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, shall amend the Complaint to
include a Claim for Relief pursuant to IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-1, et seq. and demand all
appropriate relief under the IDCSA.
343.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ deceptive,

misleading, false and/or unfair acts and practices, in violation of all of the foregoing State
consumer protection statutes, Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class were injured – and continue

to be injured – and have suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without
limitation, the money wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball
competitions.
344.

The MLB Defendants’ wrongful conduct was wanton, willful or in reckless

disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class. By reason of the foregoing,

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Classes are entitled to all available damages and remedies
available under the consumer protections statutes identified above, including, without
limitation, actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive or other equitable relief, costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees. Further, because the MLB Defendants acted willfully or
knowingly, Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Classes are entitled to recover up to three times their
actual damages, or additional punitive or exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees as applicable
under the State consumer protection statutes set forth above.

94

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 95 of 139

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE
(Against the MLB Defendants)
345.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

346.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants owned an interest in and were partners

with DraftKings and solicited contestants to participate in and otherwise promoted DraftKings’
MLB DFS contests.
347.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants realized substantial financial gain

through their partnership with DraftKings and promotion of DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests.
348.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants knew or should have known that

contestants in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests relied on the honesty and accuracy of MLB’s
player performance statistics in deciding to participate in DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests.
349.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants knew or should have known that

contestants in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were unaware that defendant MLB’s member
teams, including the Astros and the Red Sox, were engaging in impermissible electronic sign
stealing, in violation of MLB’s rules and regulations, that compromised the honesty and integrity
of DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests.
350.

By virtue of the MLB Defendants’ ownership in and partnership with DraftKings

and promotion of DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests, all undertaken by the MLB Defendants for
financial benefit, and in light of the MLB Defendants’ knowledge that the honesty and accuracy
of MLB’s player performance statistics were critical to the fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS
contests, and in light of all of the above, the MLB Defendants had a duty (a) to take reasonable
steps to ensure that MLB’s player performance statistics were, in fact, honest and accurate and
not compromised by team or player misconduct; (b) to investigate team or player misconduct
95

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 96 of 139

that might compromise the honesty and fairness of MLB’s player performance statistics; (c) to
take reasonable steps to prevent and deter any team or player misconduct that might compromise
the honesty and fairness of MLB’s player performance statistics; and (d) to disclose to potential
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants any information that the MLB Defendants knew or should
have known about any team or player misconduct that might compromise the honesty and
fairness of MLB’s player performance statistics.
351.

Although the MLB Defendants knew or should have known of MLB’s member

team or player misconduct that compromised the honesty and fairness of MLB’s player
performance statistics, they breached their obligations to Plaintiffs and the Classes, in one or
more of the following ways:

352.

a.

in that the MLB Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that
MLB’s player performance statistics were honest and accurate and not
compromised by team or player misconduct;

b.

in that the MLB Defendants failed to investigate reported team or player
misconduct that might compromise the honesty and fairness of MLB’s
player performance statistics;

c.

in that the MLB Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent and
deter any team or player misconduct that might compromise the honesty
and fairness of MLB’s player performance statistics; and

d.

in that the MLB Defendants failed to disclose to potential DraftKings’
MLB DFS contestants information that the MLB Defendants knew or
should have known about any team or player misconduct that might
compromise the honesty and fairness of MLB’s player performance
statistics.

As a direct and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ negligent conduct,

Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered injury and are entitled to damages in an amount to be
proven at trial.

96

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 97 of 139

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against the MLB Defendants)
353.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

354.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants have realized substantial financial gain

from their partnership with DraftKings and promotion of and participation in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests, through revenue sharing from fantasy baseball contest entry fees, sponsorship,
advertising and promotion.
355.

Fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to the MLB Defendants based not only on the foregoing revenue streams, but
also through increased revenue from broadcasting, attendance, advertising, and the sale of
merchandise and paraphernalia.
356.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants promoted DraftKings and DraftKings’

MLB DFS contests to obtain and enhance this financial gain.
357.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants knew and did not disclose that the

Houston Astros and Boston Red Sox were engaged in electronic sign stealing in violation of
MLB’s rules and regulations, that resulted in compromised and dishonest player performance
statistics that rendered DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests corrupt and tainted.
358.

Plaintiffs and the Classes conferred substantial monetary benefits on the MLB

Defendants in the form of contest entry fees paid to participate in DraftKings’ MLB DFS
contests, and conferred additional substantial monetary benefits through broadcasting,
attendance, advertising, and merchandise.

97

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 98 of 139

359.

The MLB Defendants’ wrongful conduct was knowing and intentional, and the

MLB Defendants appreciated and had knowledge of the monetary benefits conferred upon them
by Plaintiffs and the Classes as a result of such wrongful conduct.
360.

Under principles of equity and good conscience, the MLB Defendants should not

be permitted to retain the foregoing monetary benefits they wrongfully obtained at the expense of
Plaintiffs and the Classes.
361.

As a direct and proximate result of the MLB Defendants’ wrongful conduct, the

MLB Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for the amount of the monetary benefits
conferred upon the MLB Defendants, including, without limitation, the profits, benefits and other
financial benefits wrongfully obtained.
362.

The MLB Defendants should be compelled to disgorge into a common fund or

constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Classes all unlawful, inequitable and unjust
proceeds received and/or realized as a result of their wrongful conduct.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COMMON LAW FRAUD
(Against Defendant Houston Astros, LLC)
363.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

364.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, acting in partnership with

DraftKings, promoted and helped market DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions to the
public, participated with DraftKings in inducing members of the public to engage in such
competitions, and received financial remuneration from DraftKings for its promotion, marketing
and participation in soliciting members of the public to engage in such competitions.

98

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 99 of 139

365.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros knew that DraftKings’ MLB DFS

wagering competitions were predicated on MLB player performance statistics and that the
fairness of the competitions depended on such data representing a fair statistical analysis of
player ability and performance.
366.

Defendant Astros expressly represented when it agreed to the Major League

Constitution that defendant Astros and its players would adhere to MLB’s rules and regulations.
367.

Defendant Astros’ General Manager, Field Manager and team players were aware

that they were required to comply with MLB rules and regulations and represented and agreed
that they would do so, including when they entered into their employment agreements with
defendant Astros.
368.

Defendant Astros’ impermissible electronic sign stealing was in knowing

violation of MLB’s rules and regulations.
369.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros’ General Manager, Field

Manager, players and other employees were aware that their electronic sign stealing schemes
were in violation of MLB’s rules and regulations.
370.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros highest-ranking field executive,

Astros’ Field Manager A.J. Hinch, was aware of the Astros’ impermissible electronic sign
stealing schemes in violation of MLB rules and regulations; was aware of his obligation under
MLB rules and regulations to put an end to the schemes, but did not do so; and was aware of his
duty to disclose the schemes to MLB officials and the public, but did not do so.
371.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros’ President of Baseball Operations

and General Manager, Jeffrey Luhnow, was aware of the Astros’ impermissible electronic sign
stealing schemes in violation of MLB rules and regulations; was aware of his obligation under

99

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 100 of 139

MLB rules and regulations to put an end to the schemes, but did not do so; and was aware of his
duty to disclose the schemes to MLB officials and the public, but did not do so.
372.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros’ General Manager, Field

Manager, players and other employees were aware that defendant Astros’ impermissible
electronic sign stealing provided Astros players with an unfair and impermissible hitting
advantage that corrupted their player performance statistics and substantially and materially
undermined the fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
373.

Prior to November 2019, defendant Astros concealed its perpetration of electronic

sign stealing from members of the public and falsely attributed defendant Astros’ player
performance success to legitimate performance ability and use of modern analytics.
374.

To that end, as set forth above, the Astros made repeated statements in 2017, 2018

and 2019 asserting that the team’s players’ performance success was the result of player talent or
other legitimate baseball factors.
375.

The Astros’ representations that the Astros’ players’ performance success was the

result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to cause the public,
including DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants, to believe that Astros’ players were performing
well for legitimate baseball reasons.
376.

The Astros’ representations that the Astros’ players’ performance success was the

result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to conceal from the
public, including from DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that the Astros were
engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations and that Astros’
player performance success was the result of such cheating.

100

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 101 of 139

377.

The Astros’ representations that Astros’ players’ performance success was the

result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors statements were false.
378.

Defendant Astros’ players and other employees, including the team General

Manager and Field Manager, engaged in implementing, concealing and/or failing to terminate or
prevent the electronic sign stealing schemes described herein were acting within the scope of
their employment with defendant Astros.
379.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros knew that members of the public

would not engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions if they knew that defendant
Astros’ players were benefitting from electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB rules and
regulations, that corrupted Astros players’ performance statistics and undermined the fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
380.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros’ promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Astros), with the knowledge that the
fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of MLB player performance
statistics, including Astros’ players performance statistics, and with the knowledge that
defendant Astros’ impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and
regulations, was corrupting the accuracy of such statistics with respect to Astros’ players and
others MLB players competing against Astros’ players, imposed a duty on defendant Astros to
disclose its knowledge of its impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted
player performance statistics.

101

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 102 of 139

381.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendant Astros

intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about its and its
players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct.
382.

Defendant Astros intended, by its conduct described above, to deceive members

of the public – including Plaintiffs and the Classes – into believing that defendant Astros’ team
and player success was the result of legitimate performance ability and use of modern analytics.
383.

Defendant Astros’ concealment of its impermissible electronic sign stealing

conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball participating public with respect to the player
performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
contestants in entering into such contests.
384.

Defendant Astros’ intentional failure to disclose material information to Plaintiffs

and the Classes engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions (and the public), was
in breach of its duty to provide the public with material information that members of the public
would reasonably and justifiably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’
MLB DFS wagering competitions.
385.

As set forth above, during the time period relevant herein, MLB Commissioner

Manfred made repeated public statements – in interviews, press releases and presentations to
state governments – representing that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game of
baseball was MLB’s most important priority and committing MLB to protecting the integrity and
honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate safeguards were in
place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair.

102

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 103 of 139

386.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were made on behalf of and as the

agent of defendant Astros, who authorized Manfred to speak on its behalf and knew of, approved
and availed itself of his statements.
387.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure the public

that Major League Baseball was honestly and fairly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to
insure the continued honesty and fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative
action to prevent any dishonest or unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any
MLB teams or players engaging in dishonest or unfair conduct.
388.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure DraftKings’

MLB DFS contestants that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions were honestly and fairly
conducted.
389.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring the public

in general, and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that Major League Baseball was
fairly and honestly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to insure the continued honesty and
fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative action to prevent any dishonest or
unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any MLB teams or players engaging in
dishonest or unfair conduct.
390.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contestants that DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were fairly and
honestly conducted and that MLB would not condone or knowingly allow any conduct by MLB
teams or players that would compromise or corrupt the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests.

103

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 104 of 139

391.

Manfred’s representations that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game

of baseball was MLB’s most important priority and his commitments that MLB would protect
the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate
safeguards were in place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair, were
false.
392.

Given Manfred’s public statements about ensuring the honesty and integrity of the

game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions,
and the statements by the Astros about the basis and legitimacy of its players’ performance,
defendant Astros had a duty to disclose its knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign
stealing and the resulting distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
393.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Astros’ intentional failure to disclose material
information concerning its impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB
player performance statistic information material to such competitions.
394.

Plaintiffs and the Classes reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and
commitments by defendant Astros and Manfred set forth herein, which were rendered false by
the Astros’ and MLB’s intentional failure to disclose material information concerning MLB
Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player
performance statistic information material to such competitions.
395.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Astros’ material omissions and false
representations, and would not have done so had they known of such omissions.

104

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 105 of 139

396.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Astros’ fraudulent statements and

conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT
(TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 ET SEQ.)
(Against Defendant Houston Astros, LLC)
397.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

398.

Plaintiffs and the Classes intend to assert a claim under the Texas Deceptive

Trade Practices Act (“TDTPA”) against defendant Houston Astros, LLC. As alleged above,
Plaintiff Olson previously provided written notice of the specific complaint and damages to the
Houston Astros in accordance with TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.505. Subject to the response,
if any, by defendant Houston Astros within 60 days of the notice, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and the Classes, shall amend the Complaint to include this Claim for Relief and
demand all appropriate relief under the TDTPA.
399.

The TDTPA makes it unlawful to commit “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts

or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” T EX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46.
400.

At all material times, the Houston Astros have engaged in misleading, false,

deceptive and/or unfair acts that violated the TDTPA.
401.

Any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of the TDTPA may

bring an action based on defendant Houston Astros, LLC’s deceptive and/or unfair acts and/or
practices.
402.

Defendant Houston Astros have been and are engaged in trade and commerce

under the TDTPA. Houston Astros baseball is broadcast, advertised and promoted, and sales of
merchandise take place in Texas and throughout the United States; and professional baseball
105

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 106 of 139

games in which the Houston Astros are involved are held in Texas and in states throughout the
United States. In addition, daily fantasy sports participants who wager on contests that are and
have been impacted by the performance and statistics of players in games involving the Houston
Astros reside in Texas and throughout the U.S.
403.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants have had an ownership interest in

DraftKings, and have operated and promoted their partnership with DraftKings and DraftKings’
MLB DFS contests. In addition, the Houston Astros have a partnership with DraftKings, and has
promoted its partnership with DraftKings and has participated in soliciting participants in
DraftKings’ daily and weekly MLB DFS contests.
404.

At all material times, the Houston Astros have realized substantial financial gain

through MLB’s and its partnerships with DraftKings, through revenue sharing from fantasy
baseball contest entry fees, sponsorship, advertising and promotion.
405.

Further, fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to defendant the Houston Astros. Not only did the Houston Astros have a
financial interest in the fees paid to DraftKings by baseball fantasy participants, and receive
revenue from DraftKings’ sponsorship and advertising, but increased fantasy baseball
participation also significantly increased viewership, attendance, and general interest in Major
League Baseball, including the Houston Astros, resulting in greater revenue for the Houston
Astros from increased broadcasting, advertising, attendance and the sale of merchandise and
paraphernalia.
406.

Thus, it was and is in the Houston Astros’ interest to heavily promote DraftKings

and to provide DraftKings with sponsorship, advertising and promotional opportunities with the
Houston Astros, which the Houston Astros did at all material times, even while knowing that

106

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 107 of 139

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests were compromised and unfair as a result of the Houston
Astros’ misconduct.
407.

At the same time the Houston Astros were promoting DraftKings’ fantasy

baseball contests, the Houston Astros were engaged in the electronic sign stealing schemes
described above, which were in violation of the rules, regulations and directives of Major League
Baseball, and which resulted in compromised and dishonest MLB player performance statistics,
rendering the fantasy baseball contests in which Plaintiffs and the Classes participated corrupt
and tainted.
408.

At all material times, the Houston Astros knew or recklessly disregarded the fact

that their secret electronic sign stealing misconduct resulted in compromised and dishonest
player performance statistics.
409.

Further, the Houston Astros affirmatively concealed and failed to disclose its

electronic sign stealing misconduct even though the defendant Houston Astros, LLC knew that
such misconduct compromised the honesty and fairness of the DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests it
was separately promoting.
410.

Defendant Houston Astros’ conduct in promoting wagering on DraftKings MLB

DFS contests with knowledge that the Astros’ electronic sign stealing misconduct was
compromising the honesty and integrity of those contests, and without taking reasonable steps to
prevent or remedy its misconduct or disclose the compromised nature of the fantasy contests, as
alleged herein, constitutes unfair, deceptive, misleading and/or false practices, all conduct which
violates TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.
411.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros’ promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering

107

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 108 of 139

competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Astros), with the knowledge that the
fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of MLB player performance
statistics, including Astros’ players performance statistics, and with the knowledge that
defendant Astros’ impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and
regulations, was corrupting the accuracy of such statistics with respect to Astros’ players and
others MLB players competing against Astros’ players, imposed a duty on defendant Astros to
disclose its knowledge of its impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting distorted
player performance statistics.
412.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendant Astros

intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about its and its
players’ electronic sign stealing misconduct.
413.

Defendant Astros intended, by its conduct described above, to deceive members

of the public – including members of the public it was inducing to engage in DraftKings MLB
DFS wagering competitions – into believing that defendant Astros’ team and player success was
the result of legitimate performance ability and use of modern analytics.
414.

Defendant Astros’ concealment of its impermissible electronic sign stealing

conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball participating public with respect to the player
performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
contestants in entering into such contests.
415.

Defendant Astros’ intentional failure to disclose material information to plaintiffs

and other members of the public engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions, was
in breach of its duty to provide the public with material information that members of the public

108

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 109 of 139

would reasonably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS
wagering competitions.
416.

As set forth above, during the time period relevant herein, MLB Commissioner

Manfred made repeated public statements – in interviews, press releases and presentations to
state governments – representing that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game of
baseball was MLB’s most important priority and committing MLB to protecting the integrity and
honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate safeguards were in
place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair.
417.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were made on behalf of and as the

agent of defendant Astros, who authorized Manfred to speak on its behalf and knew of, approved
and availed itself of his statements.
418.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure the public

that Major League Baseball was honestly and fairly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to
insure the continued honesty and fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative
action to prevent any dishonest or unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any
MLB teams or players engaging in dishonest or unfair conduct.
419.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure DraftKings’

MLB DFS contestants that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions were honestly and fairly
conducted.
420.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring the public

in general, and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that Major League Baseball was
fairly and honestly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to insure the continued honesty and
fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative action to prevent any dishonest or

109

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 110 of 139

unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any MLB teams or players engaging in
dishonest or unfair conduct.
421.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contestants that DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were fairly and
honestly conducted and that MLB would not condone or knowingly allow any conduct by MLB
teams or players that would compromise or corrupt the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests.
422.

Manfred’s representations that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game

of baseball was MLB’s most important priority and his commitments that MLB would protect
the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate
safeguards were in place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair, were
false.
423.

Given Manfred’s public statements about ensuring the honesty and integrity of the

game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions,
and the statements by the Astros about the basis and legitimacy of its players’ performance,
defendant Astros had a duty to disclose its knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign
stealing and the resulting distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
424.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Astros’ intentional failure to disclose material
information concerning its impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB
player performance statistic information material to such competitions.
425.

Plaintiffs and the Classes reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and

110

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 111 of 139

commitments by defendant Astros and Manfred set forth herein, which were rendered false by
the Astros’ and MLB’s intentional failure to disclose material information concerning MLB
Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the MLB player
performance statistic information material to such competitions.
426.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Astros’ material omissions and false
representations, and would not have done so had they known of such omissions.
427.

As a result of its conduct, defendant Houston Astros, LLC has engaged in false,

misleading and deceptive acts and practices in violation of T EX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et
seq.
428.

Plaintiffs and the Classes are consumers within the meaning of the TDTPA who

paid for the fantasy baseball services provided by DraftKings that were compromised and
rendered dishonest by the Houston Astros, LLC’s unfair, deceptive, misleading and/or false acts
or practices in violation of TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.
429.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of defendant Houston Astros, LLC’s

unfair, deceptive, misleading and/or false acts or practices, in violation of T EX. BUS. & COM.
CODE § 17.41 et seq., Plaintiffs and the Classes were injured – and continue to be injured –

and have suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money
wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
430.

Defendant Houston Astros’ wrongful conduct was wanton, willful or in reckless

disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs and the Classes.
431.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to all

available damages and remedies available under TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.,

111

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 112 of 139

including, without limitation, actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive or other
equitable relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Further, because the Houston Astros
acted willfully or knowingly, Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to recover up to three times
their actual damages, or additional punitive or exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees as
applicable under the TDTPA.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendant Houston Astros, LLC)
432.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

433.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, acting in partnership with

DraftKings, promoted and marketed DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions to the public,
participated with DraftKings in inducing members of the public to engage in such competitions,
and received financial remuneration from DraftKings for its promotion, marketing and
participation in soliciting members of the public to engage in such competitions.
434.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros and defendant Astros employees,

including its General Manager, Field Manager, coaches and players knew or should have known
that DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions were predicated on MLB player performance
statistics and that the fairness of the competitions depended on the honesty of such statistics.
435.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros executives and management,

including Astros Field Manager, A.J. Hinch, and Astros President of Baseball Operations and
General Manager, Jeffrey Luhnow, were responsible for insuring that Astros team players and
other employees complied with MLB rules and regulations, including in particular MLB s
regulation prohibiting electronic sign stealing.

112

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 113 of 139

436.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros Field Manager, A.J. Hinch, was

aware that Astros team players, assisted by at least one Astros coach and other Astros
employees, were engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations
and that such electronic sign stealing provided Astros players with an unfair and impermissible
hitting advantage.
437.

At all times mentioned herein, Hinch failed to take action to prevent such player

misconduct.
438.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros General Manager, Jeffrey

Luhnow, was aware that Astros’ players, assisted by at least one Astros coach and other Astros
employees, were engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations
and that such electronic sign stealing provided Astros players with an unfair and impermissible
hitting advantage.
439.

At all times mentioned herein, Luhnow failed to take action to prevent such player

misconduct.
440.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros players, coach(es) and other

Club employees engaging in electronic sign stealing knew or should have known that such
conduct was in violation of MLB rules and regulations that they were required to comply with
and provided Astros players with an unfair and impermissible hitting advantage.
441.

At all times mentioned herein, no Astros players, coach(es) or other Club

employees took proper action to prevent such electronic sign stealing misconduct.
442.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, its executives, General Manager,

Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have known that its
impermissible electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB rules and regulations, undermined

113

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 114 of 139

the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions because, by providing Astros
hitters with an unfair hitting advantage, Astros players performance statistics, as well as the
performance statistics of players opposing the Astros, were distorted and corrupted.
443.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, its executives, General Manager,

Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees concealed the team s perpetration of
electronic sign stealing from members of the public and falsely attributed defendant Astros
player performance success to legitimate performance ability and use of modern analytics.
444.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, its executives, General Manager,

Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have known that
information that defendant Astros were engaging in electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB
rules and regulations, was highly material to DraftKings MLB DFS wagering contestants.
445.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros, its executives, General Manager,

Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have known that
members of the public would not engage in DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions if
they knew that defendant Astros were engaging in electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB
rules and regulations, that corrupted Astros and other players performance statistics and
undermined the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions.
446.

Plaintiffs and the Classes would not have participated in DraftKings MLB DFS

wagering competitions had they known that defendant Astros was engaging in electronic sign
stealing that corrupted the player performance statistics of Astros and opposing players.
447.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Astros), imposed a duty on defendant

114

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 115 of 139

Astros to (a) not engage in actions that would undermine the fairness of such competitions; (b)
keep apprised of the conduct of subordinate employees to prevent them from engaging in actions
that would undermine the fairness of such competitions; (c) properly supervise and direct the
conduct of subordinate employees to prevent them from engaging in actions that would
undermine the fairness of such competitions; and (d) disclose to the fantasy baseball contestant
public any knowledge that such competitions were unfair.
448.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Astros employees, including its General

Manager, Field Manager, coaches, players and other Club employees, were acting within the
scope of their employment by defendant Astros.
449.

The actions and omissions of defendant Astros, and its employees, for whose

conduct defendant Astros is liable, breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the Classes in one or
more of the following respects:
a. in that defendant Astros failed to require its employees to comply with
MLB rules and regulations prohibiting electronic sign stealing;
b. in that defendant Astros promoted, marketed and sought to induce fantasy
baseball contestants to engage in DraftKings MLB DFS contests while
defendant Astros knew that the fairness of such contests was undermined
by defendant Astros electronic sign stealing misconduct;
c. in that, to the extent that management employees of defendant Astros in a
position to require compliance with MLB s electronic sign stealing
prohibition and/or disclosure of such electronic sign stealing, were
unaware of defendant Astros employees electronic sign stealing, such
management employees failed to exercise proper control over the actions
of their subordinate employees, failed to keep themselves properly
informed about the actions of their subordinate employees, failed to
properly investigate the actions of their subordinate employees, and failed
to properly supervise and direct the actions of their subordinate
employees;

115

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 116 of 139

d. in that defendant Astros, although knowing that its electronic sign stealing
was information highly material to the decision of potential fantasy
baseball competition contestants to participate in DraftKings MLB DFS
contests, failed to disclose its electronic sign stealing;
e. in that defendant Astros, although knowing that its electronic sign stealing
was information highly material to the decision of potential fantasy
baseball competition contestants to participate in DraftKings MLB DFS
contests, concealed its electronic sign stealing.
450.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Astros’ negligent conduct as

aforesaid, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Defendant Houston Astros, LLC)
451.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

452.

At all material times, defendant Houston Astros, LLC has realized substantial

financial gain from its agreement with DraftKings and promotion of and participation in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests, through revenue sharing from fantasy baseball contest entry
fees, sponsorship, advertising and promotion.
453.

Fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to defendant Houston Astros, LLC based not only on the foregoing revenue
streams, but also through increased revenue from broadcasting, attendance, advertising, and the
sale of merchandise and paraphernalia.
454.

At all material times, defendant Houston Astros, LLC promoted DraftKings and

DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests to obtain and enhance this financial gain.
455.

Further, at all material times, defendant Houston Astros, LLC knew and did not

disclose that it was engaged in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB’s rules and

116

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 117 of 139

regulations (and directives), that resulted in compromised and dishonest player performance
statistics that rendered DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests corrupt and tainted.
456.

Plaintiffs and the Classes conferred substantial monetary benefits on defendant

Houston Astros , LLC in the form of contest entry fees paid to participate in DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests, and conferred additional substantial monetary benefits through broadcasting,
attendance, advertising, and merchandise revenue.
457.

Defendant Houston Astros , LLC further has received additional revenue from

increased ticket prices and substantial added value to defendant’s business by virtue of its
winning the 2017 World Series, all while wrongfully injuring Plaintiffs and the Classes .
458.

Defendant Houston Astros, LLC’s conduct was knowing and intentional, and

defendant Houston Astros, LLC appreciated and had knowledge of the monetary benefits
conferred upon them by Plaintiffs and the Classes.
459.

Under principles of equity and good conscience, defendant Houston Astros, LLC

should not be permitted to retain the foregoing monetary benefits it wrongfully obtained at the
expense of Plaintiffs and the Classes.
460.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Houston Astros, LLC’s wrongful

conduct, defendant Houston Astros, LLC is liable to Plaintiffs and the Classes for the amount of
the monetary benefits conferred upon defendant Houston Astros, LLC, including, without
limitation, the profits, benefits and other financial benefits wrongfully obtained.
461.

Defendant Houston Astros, LLC should be compelled to disgorge into a common

fund or constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Classes all unlawful, inequitable
and unjust proceeds received and/or realized as a result of its wrongful conduct.

117

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 118 of 139

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COMMON LAW FRAUD
(Against Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.)
462.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

463.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, acting in partnership with

DraftKings, promoted and helped market DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions to the
public, participated with DraftKings in inducing members of the public to engage in such
competitions, and received financial remuneration from DraftKings for its promotion, marketing
and participation in soliciting members of the public to engage in such competitions.
464.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox knew that DraftKings’ MLB

DFS wagering competitions were predicated on MLB player performance statistics and that the
fairness of the competitions depended on such data representing a fair statistical analysis of
player ability and performance.
465.

Defendant Red Sox expressly represented when it agreed to the Major League

Constitution that defendant Red Sox and its players would adhere to MLB’s rules and
regulations.
466.

Defendant Red Sox’s General Manager, Field Manager and team players were

aware that they were required to comply with MLB rules and regulations and represented and
agreed that they would do so, including when they entered into their employment agreements
with defendant Astros.
467.

Defendant Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing was in knowing

violation of MLB’s rules and regulations.

118

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 119 of 139

468.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox’s, Field Manager, players and

other employees were aware that their electronic sign stealing schemes were in violation of
MLB’s rules and regulations.
469.

At all times mentioned herein during the 2018 season, defendant Red Sox’s

highest-ranking field executive, Red Sox Field Manager Alex Cora, was aware of the Astros’
impermissible electronic sign stealing schemes in violation of MLB rules and regulations; was
aware of his obligation under MLB rules and regulations to put an end to the schemes, but did
not do so; and was aware of his duty to disclose the schemes to MLB officials and the public, but
did not do so.
470.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox’s Field Manager, players and

other employees were aware that defendant Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing
provided Astros players with an unfair and impermissible hitting advantage that corrupted their
player performance statistics and substantially and materially undermined the fairness of
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
471.

Prior to September 2017 and in 2018, defendant Red Sox concealed its

perpetration of electronic sign stealing from members of the public and falsely attributed
defendant Red Sox’s player performance success to legitimate performance ability and use of
modern analytics.
472.

To that end, as set forth above, the Red Sox made repeated statements in 2017,

2018 and 2019 asserting that the team’s players’ performance success was the result of player
talent or other legitimate baseball factors.
473.

The Red Sox’s representations that the Red Sox’s players’ performance success

was the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to cause the

119

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 120 of 139

public, including DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants, to believe that Red Sox’s players were
performing well for legitimate baseball reasons.
474.

The Red Sox’s representations that the Red Sox’s players’ performance success

was the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors were intended to conceal from
the public, including from DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that the Red Sox
were engaging in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and regulations and that Red
Sox’s player performance success was the result of such cheating.
475.

The Red Sox’s representations that Red Sox’s players’ performance success was

the result of player talent or other legitimate baseball factors statements were false.
476.

Defendant Red Sox’s players and other employees, including the team Field

Manager, engaged in implementing, concealing and/or failing to terminate or prevent the
electronic sign stealing schemes described herein were acting within the scope of their
employment with defendant Red Sox.
477.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox knew that members of the

public would not engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions if they knew that
defendant Red Sox’s players were benefitting from electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB
rules and regulations, that corrupted Red Sox players’ performance statistics and undermined the
fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
478.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox’s promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Red Sox), with the knowledge that
the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of MLB player performance
statistics, including Red Sox’s players performance statistics, and with the knowledge that

120

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 121 of 139

defendant Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and
regulations, was corrupting the accuracy of such statistics with respect to Red Sox’s players and
others MLB players competing against Red Sox’s players, imposed a duty on defendant Red
Sox’s to disclose its knowledge of its impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted player performance statistics.
479.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendant Red Sox

intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about its players’
electronic sign stealing misconduct.
480.

Defendant Red Sox intended, by its conduct described above, to deceive members

of the public – including members of the public it was inducing to engage in DraftKings MLB
DFS wagering competitions – into believing that defendant Red Sox’s team and player success
was the result of legitimate performance ability.
481.

Defendant Red Sox’s concealment of its impermissible electronic sign stealing

conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball participating public with respect to the player
performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
contestants in entering into such contests.
482.

Defendant Red Sox’s intentional failure to disclose material information to

Plaintiffs and the Classes engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions (and the
public) was in breach of its duty to provide the public with material information that members of
the public, including Plaintiffs and the Classes, would reasonably and justifiably rely upon in
deciding whether or not to enter into DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
483.

As set forth above, during the time period relevant herein, MLB Commissioner

Manfred made repeated public statements – in interviews, press releases and presentations to

121

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 122 of 139

state governments – representing that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game of
baseball was MLB’s most important priority and committing MLB to protecting the integrity and
honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate safeguards were in
place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair.
484.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were made on behalf of and as the

agent of defendant Red Sox, who authorized Manfred to speak on its behalf and knew of,
approved and availed itself of his statements.
485.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure the public

that Major League Baseball was honestly and fairly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to
insure the continued honesty and fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative
action to prevent any dishonest or unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any
MLB teams or players engaging in dishonest or unfair conduct.
486.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure DraftKings’

MLB DFS contestants that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions were honestly and fairly
conducted.
487.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring the public

in general, and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that Major League Baseball was
fairly and honestly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to insure the continued honesty and
fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative action to prevent any dishonest or
unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any MLB teams or players engaging in
dishonest or unfair conduct.
488.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contestants that DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were fairly and

122

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 123 of 139

honestly conducted and that MLB would not condone or knowingly allow any conduct by MLB
teams or players that would compromise or corrupt the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests.
489.

Manfred’s representations that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game

of baseball was MLB’s most important priority and his commitments that MLB would protect
the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate
safeguards were in place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair, were
false.
490.

Given Manfred’s public statements about ensuring the honesty and integrity of the

game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions,
and the statements by the Red Sox about the basis and legitimacy of its players’ performance,
defendant Red Sox had a duty to disclose its knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign
stealing and the resulting distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
491.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Red Sox’s intentional failure to disclose
material information concerning its impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the
MLB player performance statistic information material to such competitions.
492.

Plaintiffs and the Classes reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and
commitments by defendant Red Sox and Manfred set forth herein, which were rendered false by
defendant Red Sox’s and Manfred’s intentional failure to disclose material information
concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing and corrupt of the
MLB player performance statistic information material to such competitions..

123

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 124 of 139

493.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Red Sox’s material omissions and false
representations, and would not have done so had they known of such omissions.
494.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Red Sox’s fraudulent statements and

conduct, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
(M.G.L. CHAPTER 93A)
(Against Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.)
495.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the above allegations herein.

496.

Plaintiff Olson intends to assert a claim under the Massachusetts Consumer

Protection Act (the “Massachusetts Act”) against defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.
Plaintiff Olson previously provided a written demand for relief in accordance with M.G.L. c.
93A § 9(3). This Count provides notice to defendant Boston Red Sox of the prospective claim
by Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass. Subject to the response, if any, by the Boston
Red Sox within 30 days of the notice, Plaintiff Olson, on behalf of himself and the Massachusetts
Subclass, shall amend the Complaint to include this Claim for Relief and demand all appropriate
relief under the Massachusetts Act.
497.

The Massachusetts Act prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the

conduct of any trade or commerce ….” M.G.L. c. 93A § 2.
498.

At all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has engaged

in unfair and deceptive conduct that violated the Massachusetts Act.

124

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 125 of 139

499.

Any person who has suffered a loss as a result of a violation of the Massachusetts

Act may bring an action based on defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.’s unfair and/or
deceptive acts or practices.
500.

Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has been and is engaged in trade

and commerce under the Massachusetts Act. Boston Red Sox baseball is broadcast, advertised
and promoted, and sales of merchandise take place in Massachusetts and throughout the United
States; and professional baseball games in which the Boston Red Sox are involved are held in
Massachusetts and in states throughout the United States. In addition, daily fantasy sports
participants who wager on contests that are and have been impacted by the performance and
statistics of players in games involving the Boston Red Sox reside in Massachusetts and
throughout the U.S.
501.

At all material times, the MLB Defendants have had an ownership interest in

DraftKings, and have operated and promoted their partnership with DraftKings and DraftKings’
MLB DFS contests. In addition, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has a
partnership with DraftKings, and has promoted its partnership with DraftKings and has
participated in soliciting participants in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests.
502.

At all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has realized

substantial financial gain through the partnerships between MLB and DraftKings and between
the Boston Red Sox and DraftKings, through revenue sharing from fantasy baseball contest entry
fees, sponsorship, advertising and promotion.
503.

Further, fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.. Not only did defendant
Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. have a financial interest in the fees paid to DraftKings by

125

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 126 of 139

baseball fantasy participants, and receive revenue from DraftKings’ sponsorship and advertising,
but increased fantasy baseball participation also significantly increased viewership, attendance,
and general interest in Major League Baseball, including the Boston Red Sox, resulting in greater
revenue for defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. from broadcasting, advertising,
attendance and the sale of merchandise and paraphernalia.
504.

Thus, it was and is in the interest of defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club,

L.P. to heavily promote DraftKings and to provide DraftKings with sponsorship, advertising and
promotional opportunities with the Boston Red Sox, which defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball
Club, L.P. did at all material times, even while knowing that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball
contests were compromised and unfair as a result of the Boston Red Sox’s misconduct.
505.

At the same time defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. was promoting

DraftKings and DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests, the Boston Red Sox were engaged in the
electronic sign stealing in violation of the rules, regulations and directives of Major League
Baseball, and which resulted in compromised and dishonest MLB player performance statistics,
rendering the fantasy baseball contests in which Plaintiff and the Class participated corrupt and
tainted.
506.

At all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. knew or

recklessly disregarded the fact that their electronic sign stealing misconduct resulted in
compromised and dishonest player performance statistics.
507.

Further, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. affirmatively concealed

and failed to disclose its electronic sign stealing misconduct even though defendant Boston Red
Sox Baseball Club, L.P. knew that such misconduct compromised the honesty and fairness of the
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests they were separately promoting.

126

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 127 of 139

508.

Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.’s conduct in promoting wagering

on DraftKings MLB DFS contests with knowledge that their electronic sign stealing misconduct
is compromising the honesty and integrity of those contests, and without taking reasonable steps
to prevent or remedy its misconduct or disclose the compromised nature of the fantasy contests,
as alleged herein, constitutes unfair, deceptive, misleading and/or false practices, all conduct
which violates M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.
509.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox’s promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Red Sox), with the knowledge that
the fairness of such competitions was dependent on the accuracy of MLB player performance
statistics, including Red Sox’s players performance statistics, and with the knowledge that
defendant Red Sox’s impermissible electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB rules and
regulations, was corrupting the accuracy of such statistics with respect to Red Sox’s players and
others MLB players competing against Red Sox’s players, imposed a duty on defendant Red
Sox’s to disclose its knowledge of its impermissible electronic sign stealing and the resulting
distorted player performance statistics.
510.

At all times mentioned herein prior to November 2019, defendant Red Sox

intentionally concealed and did not disclose to the public material information about its players’
electronic sign stealing misconduct.
511.

Defendant Red Sox intended, by its conduct described above, to deceive members

of the public – including members of the public it was inducing to engage in DraftKings MLB
DFS wagering competitions – into believing that defendant Red Sox’s team and player success
was the result of legitimate performance ability.

127

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 128 of 139

512.

Defendant Red Sox’s concealment of its impermissible electronic sign stealing

conduct created a fraud on the fantasy baseball participating public with respect to the player
performance statistics relied upon by plaintiffs and other DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
contestants in entering into such contests.
513.

Defendant Red Sox’s intentional failure to disclose material information to

plaintiffs and other members of the public engaging in DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering
competitions, was in breach of its duty to provide the public with material information that
members of the public would reasonably rely upon in deciding whether or not to enter into
DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions.
514.

As set forth above, during the time period relevant herein, MLB Commissioner

Manfred made repeated public statements – in interviews, press releases and presentations to
state governments – representing that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game of
baseball was MLB’s most important priority and committing MLB to protecting the integrity and
honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate safeguards were in
place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair.
515.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were made on behalf of and as the

agent of defendant Red Sox, who authorized Manfred to speak on its behalf and knew of,
approved and availed itself of his statements.
516.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure the public

that Major League Baseball was honestly and fairly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to
insure the continued honesty and fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative
action to prevent any dishonest or unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any
MLB teams or players engaging in dishonest or unfair conduct.

128

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 129 of 139

517.

Manfred’s representations and commitments were intended to assure DraftKings’

MLB DFS contestants that DraftKings’ fantasy baseball competitions were honestly and fairly
conducted.
518.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring the public

in general, and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contestants in particular, that Major League Baseball was
fairly and honestly conducted, that MLB would diligently act to insure the continued honesty and
fairness of baseball, and that MLB would take affirmative action to prevent any dishonest or
unfair conduct by MLB teams or players and discipline any MLB teams or players engaging in
dishonest or unfair conduct.
519.

Manfred’s representations and commitments had the effect of assuring

DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contestants that DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests were fairly and
honestly conducted and that MLB would not condone or knowingly allow any conduct by MLB
teams or players that would compromise or corrupt the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB
DFS contests.
520.

Manfred’s representations that maintaining the integrity and honesty of the game

of baseball was MLB’s most important priority and his commitments that MLB would protect
the integrity and honesty of the game of baseball, including in making sure that appropriate
safeguards were in place to insure that fantasy baseball wagering competitions were fair, were
false.
521.

Given Manfred’s public statements about ensuring the honesty and integrity of the

game of baseball, and the honesty and fairness of DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions,
and the statements by the Red Sox about the basis and legitimacy of its players’ performance,

129

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 130 of 139

defendant Red Sox had a duty to disclose its knowledge of such impermissible electronic sign
stealing and the resulting distorted and corrupted player performance statistics.
522.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Red Sox’s intentional failure to disclose
material information concerning its impermissible electronic sign stealing and corruption of the
MLB player performance statistic information material to such competitions.
523.

Plaintiffs and the Classes reasonably and justifiably relied in participating in

DraftKings’ MLB DFS wagering competitions on the false statements, representations and
commitments by defendant Red Sox and Manfred set forth herein, which were rendered false by
defendant Red Sox’s and Manfred’s intentional failure to disclose material information
concerning MLB Clubs’ and players’ impermissible electronic sign stealing and corrupt of the
MLB player performance statistic information material to such competitions..
524.

Plaintiffs and the Classes were induced to, and did, participate in DraftKings’

MLB DFS wagering competitions by defendants Red Sox’s material omissions and false
representations, and would not have done so had they known of such omissions.
525.

As a result of its conduct, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has

engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.
526.

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass are consumers who paid for the

fantasy baseball services provided by DraftKings that were compromised and rendered dishonest
by defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices in
violation of M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.
527.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the unfair and deceptive acts or

practices by defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.,

130

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 131 of 139

Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass were injured – and continue to be injured – and

have suffered ascertainable loss and damages, including, without limitation, the money
wagered on DraftKings’ corrupt and dishonest fantasy baseball competitions.
528.

The wrongful conduct by defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. was

wanton, willful or in reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts
Subclass.
529.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff Olson and the Massachusetts Subclass are

entitled to all available damages and remedies available under M.G.L. c. 93A et seq.,
including, without limitation, actual damages, statutory damages, injunctive or other
equitable relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Further, because defendant Boston Red
Sox Baseball Club, L.P. acted willfully or knowingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
recover up to three times their actual damages, or additional punitive or exemplary damages and
attorneys’ fees as applicable under the Massachusetts Act.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.)
530.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

531.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, acting in partnership with

DraftKings, promoted and marketed DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions to the public,
participated with DraftKings in inducing members of the public to engage in such competitions,
and received financial remuneration from DraftKings for its promotion, marketing and
participation in soliciting members of the public to engage in such competitions.
532.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox and defendant Red Sox s

employees, including its General Manager, Field Manager, coaches and players knew or should
131

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 132 of 139

have known that DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions were predicated on MLB player
performance statistics and that the fairness of the competitions depended on the honesty of such
statistics.
533.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox s executives and management,

including Red Sox s Field Manager and General Manager were responsible for insuring that Red
Sox s team players and other employees complied with MLB rules and regulations, including in
particular MLB s regulation prohibiting electronic sign stealing.
534.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox s players, coach(es) and team

employees engaging in electronic sign stealing knew or should have known that such conduct
was in violation of MLB rules and regulations that they were required to comply with and
provided Red Sox players with an unfair and impermissible hitting advantage.
535.

At all times mentioned herein, no Red Sox players, coach(es) or other Club

employees took proper action to prevent such electronic sign stealing misconduct.
536.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, its executives, General

Manager, Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have
known that its impermissible electronic sign stealing, in violation of MLB rules and regulations,
undermined the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions because, by providing
Red Sox s hitters with an unfair hitting advantage, Red Sox s players performance statistics, as
well as the performance statistics of players opposing the Red Sox, were distorted and corrupted.
537.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, its executives, General

Manager, Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees concealed the team s
perpetration of electronic sign stealing from members of the public and falsely attributed
defendant Red Sox s player performance success to legitimate performance ability.

132

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 133 of 139

538.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, its executives, General

Manager, Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have
known that information that defendant Red Sox were engaging in electronic sign stealing, in
violation of MLB rules and regulations, was highly material to DraftKings MLB DFS wagering
contestants.
539.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox, its executives, General

Manager, Field Manager, players, coaches and other Club employees knew or should have
known that members of the public would not engage in DraftKings MLB DFS wagering
competitions if they knew that defendant Red Sox were engaging in electronic sign stealing, in
violation of MLB rules and regulations, that corrupted Red Sox and other players performance
statistics and undermined the fairness of DraftKings MLB DFS wagering competitions.
540.

Plaintiffs and the Classes would not have participated in DraftKings MLB DFS

wagering competitions had they known that defendant Red Sox was engaging in electronic sign
stealing that corrupted the player performance statistics of Red Sox and opposing players.
541.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox s promotion, marketing and

participation in inducing members of the public to engage in DraftKings MLB DFS wagering
competitions (for and to the economic benefit of defendant Red Sox), imposed a duty on
defendant Red Sox to (a) not engage in actions that would undermine the fairness of such
competitions; (b) keep apprised of the conduct of subordinate employees to prevent them from
engaging in actions that would undermine the fairness of such competitions; (c) properly
supervise and direct the conduct of subordinate employees to prevent them from engaging in
actions that would undermine the fairness of such competitions; and (d) disclose to the fantasy
baseball contestant public any knowledge that such competitions were unfair.

133

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 134 of 139

542.

At all times mentioned herein, defendant Red Sox s employees, including its

General Manager, Field Manager, coaches, players and other team employees, were acting
within the scope of their employment by defendant Red Sox.
543.

The actions and omissions of defendant Red Sox, and its employees, for whose

conduct defendant Red Sox is liable, breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the Classes in one or
more of the following respects:
a. in that defendant Red Sox failed to require its employees to comply with
MLB rules and regulations prohibiting electronic sign stealing;
b. in that defendant Red Sox promoted, marketed and sought to induce
fantasy baseball contestants to engage in DraftKings MLB DFS contests
while defendant Red Sox knew that the fairness of such contests was
undermined by defendant Red Sox s electronic sign stealing misconduct;
c. in that, to the extent that management employees of defendant Red Sox in
a position to require compliance with MLB s electronic sign stealing
prohibition and/or disclosure of such electronic sign stealing, were
unaware of defendant Red Sox s employees electronic sign stealing, such
management employees failed to exercise proper control over the actions
of their subordinate employees, failed to keep themselves properly
informed about the actions of their subordinate employees, failed to
properly investigate the actions of their subordinate employees, and failed
to properly supervise and direct the actions of their subordinate
employees;
d. in that defendant Red Sox, although knowing that its electronic sign
stealing was information highly material to the decision of potential
fantasy baseball competition contestants to participate in DraftKings
MLB DFS contests, failed to disclose its electronic sign stealing;
e. in that defendant Red Sox, although knowing that its electronic sign
stealing was information highly material to the decision of potential
fantasy baseball competition contestants to participate in DraftKings
MLB DFS contests, concealed its electronic sign stealing.
544.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Red Sox’s negligent conduct as

aforesaid, Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

134

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 135 of 139

TWELTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.)
545.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference the above allegations.

546.

At all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. has realized

substantial financial gain from its agreement with DraftKings and promotion of and participation
in DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests, through revenue sharing from fantasy baseball contest entry
fees, sponsorship, advertising and promotion.
547.

Fan participation in fantasy baseball contests directly resulted in increased

financial benefit to defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. based not only on the
foregoing revenue streams, but also through increased revenue from broadcasting, attendance,
advertising, and the sale of merchandise and paraphernalia.
548.

At all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. promoted

DraftKings and DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests to obtain and enhance this financial gain.
549.

Further, at all material times, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.

knew and did not disclose that it was engaged in electronic sign stealing in violation of MLB’s
rules and regulations (and directives), that resulted in compromised and dishonest player
performance statistics that rendered DraftKings’ fantasy baseball contests corrupt and tainted.
550.

Plaintiffs and the Classes conferred substantial monetary benefits on defendant

Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. in the form of contest entry fees paid to participate in
DraftKings’ MLB DFS contests, and conferred additional substantial monetary benefits through
broadcasting, attendance, advertising, and merchandise revenue.
551.

Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. further has received additional

revenue from increased ticket prices and substantial added value to defendant’s business by
135

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 136 of 139

virtue of its winning the 2018 World Series, all while wrongfully injuring Plaintiffs and the
Classes.
552.

Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P.’s conduct was knowing and

intentional, and defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. appreciated and had knowledge
of the monetary benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiffs and the Classes.
553.

Under principles of equity and good conscience, defendant Boston Red Sox

Baseball Club, L.P. should not be permitted to retain the foregoing monetary benefits it
wrongfully obtained at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Classes.
554.

As a direct and proximate result of defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club,

L.P.’s wrongful conduct, defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. is are liable to Plaintiffs
and the Classes for the amount of the monetary benefits conferred upon the defendant Boston
Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P., including, without limitation, the profits, benefits and other
financial benefits wrongfully obtained.
Defendant Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, L.P. should be compelled to disgorge into a
common fund or constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Classes all unlawful,
inequitable and unjust proceeds received and/or realized as a result of its wrongful conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A.

Certify this action and the Classes as requested herein, appoint Plaintiff as Class

Representative, and appoint Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel.
B.

Enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff and the Class on the

claims for relief asserted herein.
C.

Award to Plaintiff and each member of the Class actual, compensatory, general

and/or statutory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

136

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 137 of 139

D.

Award Plaintiff and the Class disgorgement and restitution of all ill-gotten gains,

together with all proceeds, interest, income, profits, and accessions thereto as a result of
Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
E.

Award Plaintiff and the Class exemplary and/or punitive damages, as allowed by

law, in an amount to be determined at trial.
F.

Award Plaintiff and the Class injunctive and/or other appropriate equitable relief

pursuant to the state consumer protection acts cited herein.
G.

Award Plaintiff and the Class attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law.

H.

Award Plaintiff and the Class prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as allowed

I.

Award such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

by law.

JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 38, Plaintiffs and the Classes demand trial by a jury on all issues so
triable.
DATED: February 14, 2020

SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
By:

137

/s/ David S. Golub
DAVID S. GOLUB
dgolub@sgtlaw.com
STEVEN L. BLOCH
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
IAN W. SLOSS
isloss@sgtlaw.com
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel. (203) 325-4491

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 138 of 139

John D. Radice
Kenneth Pickle
Natasha Fernandez-Silber
April Lambert
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel: (646) 245-8502
Fax: (609) 385-0745
jradice@radicelawfirm.com
kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
nsilber@radicelawfirm.com
falambert@radicelawfirm.com

Eric L. Cramer
Patrick F. Madden
BERGER AND MONTAGUE
1818 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class

138

 Case 1:20-cv-00632-JSR Document 20 Filed 02/14/20 Page 139 of 139

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on February 14, 2020, the foregoing was filed electronically and
served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by
e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone
unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may
access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.

BY: /s/ David S. Golub
David S. Golub

139