On February 28, 2025, DC Gambling Recovery LLC filed a novel lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 4, 2025 (Case No. 1:25-cv-01023). The suit invokes a centuries-old statute to challenge the legality of the District’s modern sports wagering regime. Naming most major operators as defendants, the complaint seeks recovery of gambling losses under D.C. Code § 16-1702, commonly known as the Statute of Anne. As often seen in the modern version of these cases, the plaintiff is not a losing gambler, but a third-party entity asserting claims on behalf of unnamed individuals. According to the complaint, DC Gambling Recovery LLC has no relationship with any losing bettors but instead relies on an independent statutory right to seek treble damages and share any recovery with the District of Columbia.
The Statute of Anne’s American Legacy
The Statute of Anne, originally enacted in Britain in 1710, aimed to curb excessive gambling by voiding certain gambling debts and allowing recovery of losses by either the losing gambler or, after a three-month window, a third party. That third party could sue to recover triple the amount lost by another person. In effect, the law created an incentive for uninvolved individuals to enforce gambling restrictions that the Crown had difficulty enforcing on its own.
When the District of Columbia adopted Maryland law in 1801, it also incorporated the Statute of Anne. The statute was later codified as D.C. Code § 16-1702, where it technically remains in effect today. While the law does not specifically reference sports wagering, it broadly applies to losses incurred from “playing at cards, dice, or any other game.” In contrast, the District formally authorized sports wagering in 2019 through the Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment Act (“SWLAA”), which established a regulatory framework overseen by the Office of Lottery and Gaming.
Challenging the Legal Foundation of D.C. Sports Betting
The suit advances two core arguments challenging the legality of sports wagering in the District. First, it contends that the SWLAA did not repeal or modify the Statute of Anne. Although the SWLAA explicitly authorizes the regulation of sports betting, the complaint argues that the continued existence of the Statute of Anne imposes a default $25 cap on wagers, an implied restriction that the SWLAA did not expressly override.
Second, the plaintiff argues that the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which invalidated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s (“PASPA’s”) federal ban on state-authorized sports wagering, does not extend to the District of Columbia. Because Murphy was grounded in the Tenth Amendment, which limits Congress’s authority over the states but not over the District of Columbia, the plaintiff contends that PASPA remains enforceable in the District. As a result, they claim, the SWLAA is invalid because it authorizes conduct that PASPA still prohibits in the District.
Plaintiff’s Arguments Face an Uphill Battle
The plaintiff may be correct that the Supreme Court in Murphy held PASPA unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering doctrine, which restricts Congress’s ability to compel state governments, but not federal territories or the District of Columbia where Congress can legislate directly. As a result, PASPA may technically remain on the books, raising the question of whether it could still apply in non-state jurisdictions like D.C.
That theory, however, faces significant obstacles. In 2019, D.C. legalized sports wagering and has operated a regulated market since. Despite its oversight authority, Congress has not amended PASPA or taken action to block D.C.’s law, suggesting at least implicit acceptance. And even if PASPA formally remains in the U.S. Code, the sweeping nature of Murphy and the national shift toward legal sports betting cast doubt on its enforceability anywhere. Thus, while the plaintiff presents a novel legal argument, the challenge is steep—both legally and politically.
As for the claim that the SWLAA left the Statute of Anne untouched, that theory also faces steep odds. Under standard principles of statutory interpretation, a later-enacted law that conflicts with an earlier one (whether expressly or by implication) typically prevails. It strains credulity to suggest that the Council of the District of Columbia intended to authorize a modern sports wagering regime, yet quietly preserve a $25 cap rooted in 18th-century gambling law that does not even contemplate sports betting. Had anyone considered a potential conflict between these two laws, the latter would almost surely have been revoked as it largely defeats the entire sports wagering scheme, except for de minimis wagers.
Next Steps in the Litigation
As of April 2025, the case has moved into early procedural wrangling in federal court. After removing the case from D.C. Superior Court, the defendants sought to extend their deadline to respond to the complaint beyond the 40-day extension previously agreed to by both parties. In response, the plaintiff filed an opposition urging the court to enforce the original schedule, which would require defendants to file any motions to dismiss by May 5, 2025. If such motions are filed, oppositions would be due June 16, and replies by July 7.
The plaintiff also opposed the defendants’ attempt to impose an artificial May 5 deadline for any motion to remand the case back to D.C. Superior Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the plaintiff argued that questions of subject matter jurisdiction (such as whether federal court is the proper forum) can be raised at any time and that the court has an ongoing duty to ensure its own jurisdiction. The court has not yet ruled on the briefing schedule or the jurisdictional arguments, which could determine whether the case proceeds in federal or local court.
Implications for the Industry
While several states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Carolina, have similar “Statute of Anne”-style loss recovery laws, this case is unique in that it targets a non-state jurisdiction. As a result, even if the plaintiff’s arguments are novel (if not ultimately persuasive), the case has limited direct applicability to sports wagering markets across the broader United States.
That said, the case serves as a timely reminder that long-dormant statutes can resurface in modern regulatory contexts, particularly where public interest and financial stakes are high. For the industry, it underscores two significant risks:
- The possibility that antiquated loss-recovery statutes will be revived by opportunistic plaintiffs asserting independent rights to sue; and
- Ongoing legal uncertainty in non-state jurisdictions like the District, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling in Murphy.
Even if this case is ultimately dismissed on the merits, its very filing underscores a persistent truth: legal certainty in the sports betting industry remains elusive. Operators must remain vigilant—not only of evolving regulations, but also of centuries-old laws that may still quietly shape the legal landscape.
