Benson v. DraftKings: Blind Spots in Sports Betting

By Conner Poulin

A recently filed federal lawsuit, Benson v. DraftKings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, raises questions about online accessibility standards in the rapidly expanding sports betting and daily fantasy sports industry. The case centers on whether DraftKings, one of the most prominent operators in the sports gaming market, provides a website and mobile experience that is compatible with assistive technologies used by blind and visually impaired individuals.

The complaint, filed by plaintiff Anthony Benson, asserts violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). While the allegations reflect the plaintiff’s perspective, the dispute frames a larger legal issue: what accessibility obligations do digital sports gaming platforms face, and how do plaintiffs articulate actionable barriers under the ADA in an online environment?

1. Background of the Plaintiff and the Claims
   
   
2. Plaintiff’s Visual Impairment

According to the complaint, Benson, is “legally blind,” possessing significantly limited vision due to medical conditions that substantially impair his ability to read, perceive, or navigate digital displays without the assistance of screen-reading software. He alleges reliance on popular assistive technologies, including JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, and TalkBack, all of which are designed to translate on-screen content into speech or braille outputs.

The complaint emphasizes that Benson has used screen readers for many years and is proficient in navigating websites that adhere to established accessibility norms, particularly the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. The allegations note that when websites deviate from these standards, users like Benson encounter “pervasive barriers” that impede or prevent the basic use of the site.

2. DraftKings and Its Online Platform

DraftKings, Inc., well-known among sports fans, bettors, and daily fantasy users, operates a robust digital platform that includes sports betting markets, fantasy contests, player statistics, account management, and related services. Although the readership of this article is likely familiar with the company, the complaint identifies DraftKings as a “public accommodation” within the meaning of Title III of the ADA because many of its services are offered through places of public accommodation such as recreation and amusement services.

The plaintiff alleges that DraftKings’ website is heavily relied upon by consumers who wish to access its betting and fantasy sports offerings, making digital accessibility essential to meaningful participation.

2. The Alleged Barriers to Accessibility

The complaint asserts that DraftKings’ website contains numerous access barriers for screen-reader users. These alleged issues include (but are not limited to):

1. Improperly labeled graphics or unlabeled buttons
   Benson claims that key functional elements lack accurate alt-text or programmatic labeling, causing screen readers to announce them only as “button,” “graphic,” or “clickable,” leaving the user unable to determine their function.
2. Redundant or confusing text output
   The plaintiff alleges that screen readers sometimes read the same text repeatedly or give conflicting navigational cues.
3. Broken links or inaccessible menu structures
   According to the complaint, certain menus expand visually but are not accessible through keyboard or screen-reader navigation.
4. Missing form labels
   This allegedly prevents users from completing required fields to register, log in, or manage account information.
5. Dynamic content and pop-ups that do not announce themselves
   The complaint asserts that certain pop-ups, notifications, or updated odds appear visually but are not conveyed through assistive technology.

The plaintiff contends that these barriers, taken together, deny him “full and equal enjoyment” of DraftKings’ services and effectively exclude visually impaired users from participating on equal footing with sighted customers.

The complaint further alleges that these issues violate WCAG 2.1 AA standards, which plaintiffs frequently cite as the prevailing benchmark for digital accessibility, even though the ADA itself does not adopt WCAG as binding law.

3. Claimed Violations of Federal, State, and Local Law
   
   
4. Title III of the ADA

The core federal claim is that DraftKings’ website, as an extension of its public accommodation services, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The complaint asserts that:

• DraftKings is a “place of public accommodation,”
• the plaintiff is a person with a recognized disability,
• he was denied equal access due to accessibility barriers, and
• reasonable modifications—specifically, WCAG 2.1 compliance—are readily achievable.

The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court order compelling DraftKings to make its website accessible and to implement ongoing monitoring and remediation procedures.

Notably, Title III does not allow damages, so the plaintiff requests attorney’s fees and costs, as permitted by the statute.

2. New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)

The complaint asserts that the website constitutes a “place of public accommodation” under the NYSHRL. Unlike the ADA, the NYSHRL allows damages, including civil penalties for discriminatory practices. The plaintiff claims he was denied access to DraftKings’ services in violation of this statute.

3. New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)

The NYCHRL is one of the most expansive civil rights laws in the country. The plaintiff alleges that DraftKings’ digital services discriminate against people with disabilities by denying equal enjoyment and meaningful access. He seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees under the NYCHRL.

4. Requested Relief

The complaint requests several forms of relief, including:

• A judicial declaration that DraftKings’ website violates the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
• A permanent injunction requiring DraftKings to make the site accessible, adopt policies to maintain accessibility, and undergo regular audits.
• Compensatory and punitive damages under state and city law.
• Attorneys’ fees and costs.

The overarching goal, according to the complaint, is to bring DraftKings’ digital services into compliance with accessibility standards and to ensure that visually impaired individuals can participate fully in online sports gaming.

5. Potential Defenses and Responses by DraftKings

Because DraftKings has not yet filed a response, any discussion of defenses is necessarily speculative. However, based on common litigation patterns in ADA website-access matters, several themes are likely:

1. Contesting the Scope of the ADA as Applied to Online-Only Services

Some defendants argue that the ADA’s definition of “public accommodations” does not extend to digital-only services without a nexus to a physical location. Federal courts are split on this issue. DraftKings may invoke this defense depending on its litigation strategy.

2. Arguing Substantial Compliance

DraftKings may assert that it already meets accessibility standards or that any alleged barriers are minor, transient, or not sufficiently linked to the plaintiff’s inability to access services.

3. Standing Challenges

Defendants often argue that the plaintiff:

• did not genuinely intend to use the services,
• was not deterred in a legally cognizable manner, or
• lacks a sufficient risk of future harm.

Given that Benson alleges repeated attempts to use the website, this issue may or may not be central.

4. Readily Achievable Modifications

Under the ADA, a defendant may argue that certain changes are not “readily achievable.” DraftKings may raise cost, technical feasibility, or ongoing updates that complicate full compliance.

5. Mootness

Some defendants choose to remediate barriers during litigation and argue that the request for injunctive relief is moot. Courts vary in how they treat such arguments.

These potential defenses would depend on factual development and DraftKings’ long-term litigation posture.

6. Next Steps in the Litigation

As the matter proceeds, several developments are anticipated:

• DraftKings will file an answer or motion to dismiss, setting the tone of the litigation.
• Discovery may explore the website’s coding, accessibility audits, expert evaluation, and Benson’s use of assistive technology.
• Settlement is common in ADA website-accessibility matters, particularly when remediation is feasible.
• If litigated to judgment, the case could clarify how accessibility law applies in the sports betting industry, an area with significant economic and social visibility.

Because the lawsuit arises at the intersection of digital accessibility and the burgeoning sports gaming sector, it will likely attract attention from disability advocates, regulators, and industry stakeholders.

Conclusion

Benson v. DraftKings is a significant new entry in the evolving landscape of digital-accessibility litigation. While the allegations in the complaint reflect the plaintiff’s perspective, the case sits squarely within broader national debates on how Title III of the ADA applies to online services, what standards companies must follow, and how courts should evaluate digital barriers faced by visually impaired users.

For sports lawyers and other legal professionals, the matter is particularly notable because it directly implicates the accessibility of digital sports betting platforms—a sector experiencing rapid growth and increasing regulatory scrutiny. As the case progresses, DraftKings’ response and the court’s handling of key legal questions may offer important guidance for operators, developers, and counsel across the sports and entertainment industries.