Three Law Suits Against Lottery.com and Sports.com Dismissed Without Prejudice
Lottery.com Inc., a leading technology company in digital lottery and sports entertainment, announces the following favorable judgements from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas – Austin Division:
- The Court has ruled in favor of the Company granting with prejudice the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in the case styled Ryan Peterson v. Lottery.com, Inc. d/b/a Sports.com Inc. d/b/a AutoLotto.com, Inc. (Case No. 1-23-CV-646-RP). The final judgement was signed on March 27, 2025.
- The Court has ruled in favor of the Company granting with prejudice the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in the case styled Brandon Marsh v. Lottery.com, Inc. d/b/a Sports.com Inc. d/b/a AutoLotto.com, Inc. (Case No. 1-23-CV-080-RP). The final judgement was signed on March 4, 2025.
- The Court has ruled in favor of the Company granting with prejudice the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim in the case styled Carl Wells v. Lottery.com, Inc. d/b/a Sports.com Inc. d/b/a AutoLotto.com, Inc. (Case No. 1-23-CV-081-RP). The final judgement was signed on January 25, 2025.
Matthew McGahan, Lottery.com Chairman and CEO commented:
"I am gratified by the Court’s ruling in the Company’s favor. Receiving these favorable judgments allows us to focus our resources on resuming gaming operations, building the Sports.com brand and most importantly delivering value to our shareholders. I am also delighted at the forward momentum our new management team is creating for Lottery.com. We’re successfully resolving legacy legal matters and shifting our attention towards steering the Company towards a new era of growth within an environment of accountability and transparency.”
In all three cases, the court ordered and adjudged that:
- The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were granted;
- The Plaintiffs’ Complaints were dismissed with prejudice;
- All pending deadlines and hearings were terminated;
- All other pending motions were denied as moot; and
- The Clerk of the Court was directed to close the cases.
These rulings signify the final dismissal of all claims against the company. As the cases were dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiffs are barred from refiling the same claims in this form.
