PayoutPro
Moderator
<p><strong>Published by PayoutPro. Last fact-checked 23 April 2026. Sources: California AG Opinion No. 23-1001 (3 July 2025), California Penal Code §337a, PrizePicks 2025 California operational statements, Underdog Sports v. Bonta filings.</strong></p><p></p><p>This is a fact-check, not legal advice. If you need legal guidance on your own activity in California, talk to a lawyer in that state.</p><p></p><hr /><p></p><h3>Short answer</h3><p></p><p>PrizePicks is still operating in California as of April 2026, but only in its peer-to-peer "Arena" format.</p><p></p><p>The original against-the-house pick'em contests were pulled from California on 30 June 2025. That was right before the California Attorney General released an opinion concluding that all paid daily fantasy sports contests (draft style, pick'em, and peer-to-peer) violate California Penal Code §337a.</p><p></p><p>The AG opinion is not a court ruling. It is not enforceable in the way a criminal statute is.</p><p></p><p>PrizePicks continues to take California entries in the peer-to-peer format. The legal risk sits with operators, not individual players.</p><p></p><h3>The California AG opinion explained</h3><p></p><p>On 3 July 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta published Opinion No. 23-1001. The opinion answered a question from state lawmakers: are daily fantasy sports contests legal under California law?</p><p></p><p>The AG concluded no. All paid DFS formats, whether draft style, pick'em against the house, or peer-to-peer pool play, constitute wagering on sporting contests.</p><p></p><p>Wagering on contests of skill, speed, or endurance is prohibited by California Penal Code §337a.</p><p></p><p>A formal AG opinion is an authoritative interpretation, but it does not create new law. It signals to DAs and regulators how the AG's office reads existing statute.</p><p></p><p>Enforcement is still separate. No DFS operator has been criminally charged in California since the opinion dropped.</p><p></p><p>Underdog Sports tried to block the opinion via a temporary restraining order in July 2025. Judge Jennifer Rockwell denied the motion on 2 July 2025, clearing the path for Bonta to publish the next day.</p><p></p><h3>California Penal Code §337a and fantasy sports</h3><p></p><p>§337a is the statute that matters here. It makes it an offence to "lay, make, offer or accept any bet or wager" on the result of any contest of skill, speed, or endurance of a person, an animal, or a mechanical device.</p><p></p><p>The historical carve-out for fantasy sports came from a 2016 non-binding AG letter opinion (KP-0057) and from the federal UIGEA fantasy carve-out. Neither is binding on California courts, and neither deals directly with paid pick'em formats that emerged after 2018.</p><p></p><p>The 2025 Bonta opinion argues that DFS meets the §337a definition for three reasons.</p><p></p><p>First, participants risk money. Second, the outcome depends on real-world athletic performance outside the participant's control. Third, the presence of skill in picking lineups does not remove the element of chance that §337a targets.</p><p></p><p>A contest can involve skill AND be a wager at the same time.</p><p></p><p>That is the legal logic behind the ruling. Whether a California court would adopt the same reasoning in a criminal prosecution is a separate question, and the answer is untested.</p><p></p><h3>What PrizePicks actually offers California users in 2026</h3><p></p><p>As of April 2026, PrizePicks in California looks like this.</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Available:</strong> Peer-to-peer "Arena" contests. You enter a pool, pick your player projections, and your winnings are determined by your ranking in the pool rather than a house-set payout table.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Not available:</strong> Classic pick'em against the house. The original PrizePicks product where you picked 2 to 6 player projections and won a fixed multiplier if you hit all of them. Pulled 30 June 2025.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Account handling:</strong> Existing California account balances stayed accessible. PrizePicks did not freeze or close accounts when it switched formats.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Geo-fencing:</strong> The app detects California location and surfaces only Arena. Traveling out of state temporarily unlocks the normal product, but persistent out-of-state use can trigger account review.</li>
</ul><p></p><h3>Peer-to-peer pick'em: why it matters for the legal argument</h3><p></p><p>Peer-to-peer (P2P) is the industry's attempt to look more like traditional fantasy leagues.</p><p></p><p>In a P2P contest, the casino or operator does not take the other side of your bet. It runs the pool, takes a rake, and pays out based on how players rank against each other.</p><p></p><p>That structure resembles what UIGEA treats as exempt fantasy play. The argument: you are competing against other participants, not betting on a sporting event per se.</p><p></p><p>The Bonta opinion rejects this. The AG's position is that even P2P contests still require participants to risk money on outcomes tied to real-world athletic performance, which is what §337a actually prohibits.</p><p></p><p>Skill-based structure does not cure the underlying wager.</p><p></p><p>So PrizePicks's format switch kept operations running but did not change the AG's view of the legal status. It is a commercial compromise, not a legal cure.</p><p></p><h3>What's changed since the 2025 ruling</h3><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>July to December 2025:</strong> Underdog Sports, Sleeper, and several smaller operators also restricted their California products to P2P formats.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>September 2025:</strong> Class action Koning v. Underdog Sports filed in California federal court, seeking damages for alleged illegal wagering under §337a.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Throughout 2025 and into 2026:</strong> No criminal prosecutions have been brought against DFS operators or individual users in California.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>April 2026:</strong> All major DFS operators continue to serve California in P2P-only formats. Nothing has passed the state legislature to either confirm the AG's position or legalise DFS explicitly.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>The state has essentially parked the issue. Operators run the narrower product.</p><p></p><p>The AG's opinion sits on the record. Courts have not been asked to rule on the criminal question. The civil class action works its way through.</p><p></p><h3>DFS alternatives Californians are using</h3><p></p><p>For informational purposes only. We are not recommending any of these, and we are not making claims about their legal status.</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Underdog Fantasy Arena</strong>: peer-to-peer only in California since July 2025.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Sleeper Picks</strong>: restricted California product, P2P-style.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Dabble</strong>: peer-to-peer pick'em operator.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>ParlayPlay</strong>: similar P2P restructure.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Traditional season-long leagues</strong> (Yahoo, ESPN, NFL Fantasy): unaffected by the Bonta opinion because they are not "daily" in the §337a sense.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>Sweepstakes-casino style fantasy products (using gold coins and sweeps coins) are outside the DFS discussion entirely and operate under different legal framing in California.</p><p></p><h3>Legal risk for players vs operators</h3><p></p><p>This is the question most people actually want answered.</p><p></p><p>§337a makes it an offence to "lay, make, offer or accept" a wager. On its face, that language covers both the operator and the participant.</p><p></p><p>In practice, California has not prosecuted DFS participants for placing paid entries. Enforcement in gambling cases across US states has historically focused on operators, not players.</p><p></p><p>That does not mean the risk is zero. It means the risk pattern is:</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Operator criminal risk:</strong> Low but non-zero. No prosecutions yet. AG opinion on the record.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Operator civil risk:</strong> Higher. Class actions are live. Restitution claims under California consumer protection law are on the docket.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Player criminal risk:</strong> Historically near-zero in gambling cases. The AG did not signal any intention to pursue individual users.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Player civil risk:</strong> Not the typical frame. More relevant is the question of whether your winnings are recoverable if an operator is later forced to refund entries.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>If you are a California resident currently playing P2P contests and losing, you are unlikely to face criminal consequences. If you are playing and winning, the question of whether those winnings can be clawed back in a restitution-type action is more interesting, and unresolved.</p><p></p><h3>What to watch in 2026 and 2027</h3><p></p><p>Three things to track.</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>State legislation.</strong> California lawmakers have floated DFS-specific bills multiple times since 2018. Nothing has passed. Watch AB-831 and similar proposals in the 2026 session.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>The Koning class action.</strong> A settlement or judgement could reshape the risk calculation for DFS operators offering any paid product in California.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Tribal gaming politics.</strong> Any broader expansion of online betting in California (including DFS clarification) requires navigating tribal compact interests. Proposition 26 and 27 both failed in 2022, and the tribal coalition has since blocked multiple follow-on proposals.</li>
</ul><p></p><h3>FAQ</h3><p></p><p><strong>Can I still play PrizePicks in California?</strong></p><p>Yes, in the peer-to-peer Arena format. The original pick'em-against-the-house product is not available.</p><p></p><p><strong>Will my PrizePicks account get closed for being in California?</strong></p><p>No. PrizePicks has kept California accounts active since the format switch.</p><p></p><p><strong>Is PrizePicks illegal in California?</strong></p><p>The AG's opinion says yes, daily fantasy contests violate §337a. No court has ruled on the criminal question. PrizePicks continues to operate in P2P-only format, arguing the legal position is unsettled.</p><p></p><p><strong>Will I get prosecuted for playing?</strong></p><p>Historically, California has not pursued individual DFS participants. The AG opinion did not signal a change in that enforcement approach. Operators carry the legal exposure.</p><p></p><hr /><p></p><p><strong>Last fact-checked by PayoutPro, 23 April 2026.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Cited sources:</strong></p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">California AG Opinion No. 23-1001, 3 July 2025 (Bonta opinion on daily fantasy sports)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">California Penal Code §337a (wagering prohibition)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Underdog Sports v. Bonta (2 July 2025, TRO denied)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Koning v. Underdog Sports, 3:25-cv-07211 (N.D. Cal., September 2025)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">PrizePicks California product statements, 30 June 2025 and following</li>
</ul><p></p>
Related on Leanbackplayer:
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Available:</strong> Peer-to-peer "Arena" contests. You enter a pool, pick your player projections, and your winnings are determined by your ranking in the pool rather than a house-set payout table.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Not available:</strong> Classic pick'em against the house. The original PrizePicks product where you picked 2 to 6 player projections and won a fixed multiplier if you hit all of them. Pulled 30 June 2025.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Account handling:</strong> Existing California account balances stayed accessible. PrizePicks did not freeze or close accounts when it switched formats.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Geo-fencing:</strong> The app detects California location and surfaces only Arena. Traveling out of state temporarily unlocks the normal product, but persistent out-of-state use can trigger account review.</li>
</ul><p></p><h3>Peer-to-peer pick'em: why it matters for the legal argument</h3><p></p><p>Peer-to-peer (P2P) is the industry's attempt to look more like traditional fantasy leagues.</p><p></p><p>In a P2P contest, the casino or operator does not take the other side of your bet. It runs the pool, takes a rake, and pays out based on how players rank against each other.</p><p></p><p>That structure resembles what UIGEA treats as exempt fantasy play. The argument: you are competing against other participants, not betting on a sporting event per se.</p><p></p><p>The Bonta opinion rejects this. The AG's position is that even P2P contests still require participants to risk money on outcomes tied to real-world athletic performance, which is what §337a actually prohibits.</p><p></p><p>Skill-based structure does not cure the underlying wager.</p><p></p><p>So PrizePicks's format switch kept operations running but did not change the AG's view of the legal status. It is a commercial compromise, not a legal cure.</p><p></p><h3>What's changed since the 2025 ruling</h3><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>July to December 2025:</strong> Underdog Sports, Sleeper, and several smaller operators also restricted their California products to P2P formats.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>September 2025:</strong> Class action Koning v. Underdog Sports filed in California federal court, seeking damages for alleged illegal wagering under §337a.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Throughout 2025 and into 2026:</strong> No criminal prosecutions have been brought against DFS operators or individual users in California.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>April 2026:</strong> All major DFS operators continue to serve California in P2P-only formats. Nothing has passed the state legislature to either confirm the AG's position or legalise DFS explicitly.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>The state has essentially parked the issue. Operators run the narrower product.</p><p></p><p>The AG's opinion sits on the record. Courts have not been asked to rule on the criminal question. The civil class action works its way through.</p><p></p><h3>DFS alternatives Californians are using</h3><p></p><p>For informational purposes only. We are not recommending any of these, and we are not making claims about their legal status.</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Underdog Fantasy Arena</strong>: peer-to-peer only in California since July 2025.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Sleeper Picks</strong>: restricted California product, P2P-style.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Dabble</strong>: peer-to-peer pick'em operator.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>ParlayPlay</strong>: similar P2P restructure.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Traditional season-long leagues</strong> (Yahoo, ESPN, NFL Fantasy): unaffected by the Bonta opinion because they are not "daily" in the §337a sense.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>Sweepstakes-casino style fantasy products (using gold coins and sweeps coins) are outside the DFS discussion entirely and operate under different legal framing in California.</p><p></p><h3>Legal risk for players vs operators</h3><p></p><p>This is the question most people actually want answered.</p><p></p><p>§337a makes it an offence to "lay, make, offer or accept" a wager. On its face, that language covers both the operator and the participant.</p><p></p><p>In practice, California has not prosecuted DFS participants for placing paid entries. Enforcement in gambling cases across US states has historically focused on operators, not players.</p><p></p><p>That does not mean the risk is zero. It means the risk pattern is:</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Operator criminal risk:</strong> Low but non-zero. No prosecutions yet. AG opinion on the record.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Operator civil risk:</strong> Higher. Class actions are live. Restitution claims under California consumer protection law are on the docket.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Player criminal risk:</strong> Historically near-zero in gambling cases. The AG did not signal any intention to pursue individual users.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Player civil risk:</strong> Not the typical frame. More relevant is the question of whether your winnings are recoverable if an operator is later forced to refund entries.</li>
</ul><p></p><p>If you are a California resident currently playing P2P contests and losing, you are unlikely to face criminal consequences. If you are playing and winning, the question of whether those winnings can be clawed back in a restitution-type action is more interesting, and unresolved.</p><p></p><h3>What to watch in 2026 and 2027</h3><p></p><p>Three things to track.</p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>State legislation.</strong> California lawmakers have floated DFS-specific bills multiple times since 2018. Nothing has passed. Watch AB-831 and similar proposals in the 2026 session.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>The Koning class action.</strong> A settlement or judgement could reshape the risk calculation for DFS operators offering any paid product in California.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Tribal gaming politics.</strong> Any broader expansion of online betting in California (including DFS clarification) requires navigating tribal compact interests. Proposition 26 and 27 both failed in 2022, and the tribal coalition has since blocked multiple follow-on proposals.</li>
</ul><p></p><h3>FAQ</h3><p></p><p><strong>Can I still play PrizePicks in California?</strong></p><p>Yes, in the peer-to-peer Arena format. The original pick'em-against-the-house product is not available.</p><p></p><p><strong>Will my PrizePicks account get closed for being in California?</strong></p><p>No. PrizePicks has kept California accounts active since the format switch.</p><p></p><p><strong>Is PrizePicks illegal in California?</strong></p><p>The AG's opinion says yes, daily fantasy contests violate §337a. No court has ruled on the criminal question. PrizePicks continues to operate in P2P-only format, arguing the legal position is unsettled.</p><p></p><p><strong>Will I get prosecuted for playing?</strong></p><p>Historically, California has not pursued individual DFS participants. The AG opinion did not signal a change in that enforcement approach. Operators carry the legal exposure.</p><p></p><hr /><p></p><p><strong>Last fact-checked by PayoutPro, 23 April 2026.</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>Cited sources:</strong></p><p></p><ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">California AG Opinion No. 23-1001, 3 July 2025 (Bonta opinion on daily fantasy sports)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">California Penal Code §337a (wagering prohibition)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Underdog Sports v. Bonta (2 July 2025, TRO denied)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Koning v. Underdog Sports, 3:25-cv-07211 (N.D. Cal., September 2025)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">PrizePicks California product statements, 30 June 2025 and following</li>
</ul><p></p>
Related on Leanbackplayer:
- PrizePicks in Texas: the original franchise pillar with full TX context.
- PrizePicks in Florida: the FL franchise equivalent covering Arena and the Seminole compact.
Last edited: