By Ja’Larris Williams
In January 2022, Nerye Aminov, a resident of New York, encountered a promotional advertisement from DraftKings that offered a “$1,000 Deposit Bonus.” Aminov alleged that this promotion was misleading and persuaded him to deposit funds based on false pretenses. He filed claims under New York General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350, as well as common law claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in December 2024. DraftKings responded with a motion to dismiss, which Judge Margo K. Brodie granted in July 2025.
According to Aminov, the advertisement gave the impression that all users could easily receive “$1,000 in bonus funds” after making a relatively small deposit. Acting on this belief, he registered for an account and deposited $500. He received only $100 in bonus credit. Upon review, he discovered that qualifying for the full $1,000 bonus required meeting several specific terms: depositing at least $5,000, placing $25,000 in wagers within 90 days, and complying with odds restrictions on those wagers. Aminov claimed that DraftKings did not adequately disclose these terms at the time of his deposit. He argued that the language used in the advertisement was unclear and failed to accurately represent the promotion’s true value. New York GBL Sections 349 and 350 prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising. Aminov asserted that DraftKings violated these provisions by omitting material information from its advertisements. He also brought common law claims, arguing that the promotion constituted fraud and unjust enrichment.
DraftKings denied the allegations and asserted that the promotional terms were clearly presented. The company explained that users encountered a link to the terms and conditions on the same screen as the deposit prompt. This link appeared in the same font and color as surrounding text. DraftKings maintained that a reasonable consumer would have reviewed and understood the terms before proceeding with a deposit. Judge Brodie evaluated whether DraftKings’ actions violated the “reasonable consumer” standard established by New York consumer protection laws. This standard examines whether an average consumer would have been misled by the alleged conduct.
The court concluded that Aminov failed to satisfy this standard. Judge Brodie found that the promotion’s full terms appeared clearly and prominently on the deposit page. The court noted that the promotion included a detailed explanation of the $1,000 bonus, including the deposit threshold, wagering requirements, odds limitations, and the 90-day timeframe. Since these terms were neither hidden nor ambiguous, the court determined that a reasonable consumer would not have been misled. Judge Brodie emphasized that consumer protection laws exist to shield individuals from deceptive or hidden marketing practices, not from their own failure to read clearly presented terms. The court stated that businesses remain within legal boundaries when promotional materials are transparent and accurately disclose all material conditions. As a result, the court dismissed the GBL claims, finding no evidence of deceptive or false advertising. The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, which relied on the same underlying allegations. Finally, the court dismissed the fraud and misrepresentation claims because Aminov did not address DraftKings’ dismissal arguments in his opposition brief. Under federal procedural rules, a party’s failure to respond may be treated as a concession, which the court applied in this instance; therefore, all claims were dismissed with prejudice.
The outcome of Aminov v. DraftKings, Inc. illustrates how courts evaluate the clarity and accessibility of promotional terms in the online gambling industry. As the popularity of sports betting continues to rise in the United States, regulators and courts have become more attentive to the marketing strategies used by companies in this space. While aggressive advertising may raise consumer concerns, transparency and full disclosure remain essential defenses against legal challenges. This case reinforces the importance of reviewing promotional terms before engaging in online betting. It also reminds businesses to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws while crafting effective advertisements. The ruling highlights the role of the “reasonable consumer” standard and sets a precedent for how courts may assess the fairness of digital marketing practices moving forward. Aminov v. DraftKings, Inc. speaks to the development within the realm of consumer protection and the evolving sports betting industry. The court’s decision showcases that transparency in advertising, especially when terms are easy to locate and understand, offers legal protection against claims of deception. Judge Brodie affirmed that accurate and conspicuous disclosures do not constitute false advertising, even if some consumers fail to read or fully grasp the details.
Ultimately, this case demonstrates the balance courts must strike in protecting consumers from misleading practices while simultaneously allowing businesses to lawfully market their services. In the context of sports betting, the most effective defense against accusations of deception remains a clear and honest presentation of the terms.
Ja’Larris Williams is a graduate assistant at the University of North Alabama, pursuing a Master’s in Sport and Recreation Management. His research interests primarily focus on collegiate sports administration and legal issues in sports gambling.
