Churchill Downs and NYRA seek dismissal of CAW betting lawsuit
The companies are among several defendants challenging a class action over the treatment of computer-assisted wagering operators in pari-mutuel betting pools.
U.S.- Churchill Downs and the New York Racing Association (NYRA) have asked a federal court in New York to dismiss a class action lawsuit that claims computer-assisted wagering (CAW) operations receive unfair advantages in pari-mutuel betting pools. A hearing is scheduled for October 9 at the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The class action was filed last year by Ryan Dickey on behalf of seven bettors. It names Churchill Downs, NYRA, The Stronach Group and several wagering technology companies, alleging that their relationships with CAW operations violate federal and state laws.
At the centre of the dispute is how CAW operators participate in pari-mutuel pools. Unlike fixed-odds betting, pari-mutuel wagering combines bets into a common pool, with the remaining funds distributed among winning tickets after the track takes its share.
The complainants argue that some high-volume CAW operators receive preferential conditions, including refunds and access to advanced wagering technology. They also allege that these bettors can place large volumes of wagers shortly before betting closes, potentially changing the final odds after other customers have already placed their bets. According to the plaintiffs, relationships among racetracks, advance-deposit wagering platforms and tote companies give some defendants significant influence over the infrastructure used to operate betting pools.
Defendants challenge the claims
The defendants dispute the basis of the lawsuit and argue that the claimants have not demonstrated a direct financial loss caused by the alleged practices. They also say the bettors have not identified specific wagers where CAW activity resulted in a measurable reduction in their payouts.
According to the companies, final pari-mutuel payouts reflect betting decisions made by a large number of participants and cannot be attributed directly to racetrack operators or technology providers. The defendants also seek to defeat claims brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Their filings argue that the allegations do not satisfy the requirements for a RICO claim, while also challenging claims based on laws in seven states and several common-law theories.
