Verticals / Pick'em fantasy
Pick'em fantasy
Pick'em fantasy contests are legal and live in 10 states and DC, as of Oct 12, 2026. 5 states allow it in a limited form.
Pick'em / player-vs-house fantasy formats.
LiveLimitedContestedProhibitedNot authorized
By state
| State | Status | Launched | Model | Current tax | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Live | Competitive | 5% OTHER (total) | Pick'em-style operators PrizePicks, Underdog, ParlayPlay and Betr are licensed by ADG as Fantasy Sports Contest Operators (same license category/chapter as traditional DFS); no separate pick'em statute exists. OwnersBox 3.0 is listed by ADG as having "ceased operations in Arizona." | |
| Colorado | Live | Competitive | 0% OTHER (total) | Division of Gaming proposed 2023-24 rulemaking to more clearly define what counts as a "fantasy contest" (vs. sports betting) amid growth of pick'em-style products; oversight of DFS moved to the Division of Gaming (from DORA's Division of Professions and Occupations). | |
| District of Columbia | Live | Competitive | 0% OTHER (total) | Pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy formats fall under the same § 36-601.01(c)(17) fantasy-contest exclusion from "sports wagering" as peer-to-peer DFS, with no separate statute or regulator treatment distinguishing the two formats. | |
| Iowa | Live | Competitive | 6.75% OTHER (online) | Regulated under the same ch. 99E internet fantasy sports contest framework as traditional DFS; IRGC publishes a dedicated "Fantasy Sports" revenue report. | |
| Kentucky | Live | Competitive | HB 904's fantasy-contest definition and KHRGC licensing requirement are not limited to a particular contest format, so pick'em-style, player-vs-house contests fall under the same licensing framework and rules as traditional head-to-head or season-long fantasy contests. | ||
| Maryland | Live | Competitive | Fantasy competitions decided by the performance of a single team, combination of teams, or a single athlete in a single event are reclassified as sports wagering (not 'fantasy competition') under Maryland law, so true pick'em-style contests fall under the sports_online tax schedule above rather than the DFS 15%/85% split, if they are offered as licensed products at all. OTHER (online) | Fantasy competitions decided by the performance of a single team, combination of teams, or single athlete in a single event are reclassified as sports wagering (not fantasy) under Maryland's framework, restricting pure pick'em-style formats distinct from traditional DFS. | |
| Missouri | Live | Competitive | 11.5% NET_REVENUE (online) | Pick'em-style fantasy products (e.g., Underdog, PrizePicks "Culture Picks") operate under the 2016 fantasy-contest law; sports "event contracts"/prediction-style products from the same operators are a separate category that the Attorney General has targeted as unlicensed sports wagering. | |
| New Jersey | Live | Mar 2025 | Competitive | 19.75% OTHER (online) | Pick'em/player-vs-house formats (PrizePicks, Underdog) operate under the same Fantasy Sports Act registration as peer-to-peer DFS. Underdog launched its pick'em product in NJ in March 2025 after exiting New York; in September 2026 Underdog surrendered its NJ DFS license (and six others) to instead offer CFTC-licensed prediction-market-style contracts. |
| Rhode Island | Live | Same as classic DFS: no Rhode Island-specific tax or fee; pick'em-format operators (PrizePicks, Underdog) operate under the same 2016 AG opinion as classic DFS. OTHER (online) | Pick'em/player-vs-house operators (PrizePicks, Underdog Fantasy) are available to Rhode Island players, operating under the same 2016 Attorney General "dominant factor" opinion as classic daily fantasy sports, since Rhode Island has no statute that distinguishes pick'em formats from classic fantasy contests.? | ||
| Tennessee | Live | Competitive | 6% AGR (online) | The Fantasy Sports Act and SWC licensing framework are not described as distinguishing daily/season-long peer-to-peer formats from pick'em/player-vs-house formats; both appear to fall under the same operator-licensing regime. | |
| Wyoming | Live | No Wyoming tax or fee applies; pick'em-style fantasy contests fall under the same gambling-definition exclusion as peer-to-peer daily fantasy sports. OTHER (online) | Pick'em-style fantasy sports contests, where a player picks over/under outcomes against the house rather than against other players, operate under the same exclusion from Wyoming's gambling definition as peer-to-peer daily fantasy sports, so they are unlicensed and untaxed.? | ||
| Indiana | Limited | Competitive | 0% OTHER (total) | Indiana's DFS statute does not separately classify pick'em/player-vs-house formats; such contests operate under the same IC 4-33-24 paid-fantasy-sports licensing umbrella pending any IGC determination that a given product is more properly sports wagering. | |
| Massachusetts | Limited | Competitive | 15% AGR (online) | Pick'em-style player-vs-house fantasy products (PrizePicks, Underdog Fantasy, and others) operate in Massachusetts under the same "fantasy contest" framework as peer-to-peer DFS; the Gaming Commission and Attorney General have not taken public action to distinguish or restrict the format.? | |
| Nevada | Limited | Hybrid | 6.75% GGR (online) | Treated the same as DFS under the 2015 Gaming Control Board sports-pool determination; pick'em/player-vs-house products require a sports-pool license. PrizePicks and similar unlicensed operators do not operate legally in Nevada. | |
| New Hampshire | Limited | Competitive | Same as dfs: RSA 287-H and the Lottery Commission's fantasy-sports rules (Lot 4002) impose registration requirements but no operator fee or revenue tax; the rules do not separately address pick'em/player-vs-house formats, so no distinct tax treatment exists for them. OTHER (online) | The Lottery Commission's fantasy-sports rules (Lot 4002.01(c)) define a fantasy sports contest as one "in which one or more players compete against each other," tracking RSA 287-H's peer-to-peer framing, and the rules do not separately name or address player-vs-house "pick'em" formats. PrizePicks was licensed in 2024 but reported, per a secondary industry source, to have launched only its peer-to-peer "Arena" product in New Hampshire rather than its house-banked pick'em product; the commission itself has taken no public position confirming or banning pick'em-style contests.? | |
| Ohio | Limited | Competitive | Same treatment as dfs above: pick'em-style DFS contests have not been given a separate license category or tax by the Ohio Casino Control Commission or by statute, so no fee/tax structure specific to pick'em products exists beyond the general Chapter 3774 fantasy-contest license fee. OTHER (online) | Player-vs-house pick'em products such as PrizePicks and Underdog operate under the same fantasy-contest licensing framework the Casino Control Commission applies to ordinary daily fantasy sports; the Commission has not issued a formal ruling reclassifying pick'em as sports wagering, unlike several other states.? | |
| Arkansas | Contested | In February 2024, the Department of Finance and Administration sent cease-and-desist letters to PrizePicks and Underdog, asserting their pick'em-style contests (which DFA characterized as "player prop" bets) are unlicensed sports betting rather than fantasy sports contests under Act 1075, and ordering them to leave the Arkansas market. As of mid-2026 secondary reporting, major pick'em apps continued operating in Arkansas despite the letters, and it remained unclear whether DFA would escalate enforcement. | |||
| California | Contested | Explicitly covered by the same July 2025 AG opinion as DFS generally; pick'em/player-vs-house formats (PrizePicks, Underdog) were found to be illegal sports wagering. | |||
| Florida | Contested | FGCC sent cease-and-desist letters (Sept. 19, 2023, and a follow-up Jan. 31, 2024) to PrizePicks, Underdog Fantasy, and Betr, asserting their pick'em-style fantasy contests are illegal wagers on games of skill under § 849.14, warning of referral to the Attorney General's Office of Statewide Prosecution. Rather than litigate, PrizePicks and Underdog exited the Florida market by March 1, 2024. No court has ruled on whether these pick'em-style contests are illegal wagers. | |||
| Illinois | Contested | Single-player pick'em-style contests (PrizePicks, Underdog, drafter.com, parlayplay.io, where a player picks over/under props against house-set lines rather than against other entrants) are explicitly excluded from the "fantasy contest" definition in Illinois' new fantasy-contest licensing law (Public Act 104-0468), so they have no path to licensure under that framework even after it takes effect. An operator that previously ran single-player contests may remain eligible to apply for a different license, but that does not authorize continuing to offer pick'em contests themselves. The Sports Wagering Act separately excludes only fantasy contests (as newly defined) from its "sports wagering" definition, so a pick'em product that doesn't qualify as a fantasy contest is not clearly excluded from sports-wagering regulation either -- consistent with the Illinois Gaming Board's position that pick'em operators are offering unlicensed sports wagering, reflected in its cease-and-desist letters to drafter.com and parlayplay.io. | |||
| New Mexico | Contested | Competitive | No New Mexico-specific statute or guidance distinguishes player-vs-house "pick'em" formats from traditional season-long/salary-cap DFS; the December 2025 AG opinion's four-factor "game" definition analysis for DFS generally was not framed around any particular format and would likely apply similarly to pick'em products. | ||
| Oregon | Contested | Would fall under the same Nov. 2025 AG opinion reasoning as traditional DFS, since no fantasy-contest statutory exemption exists.? | |||
| Texas | Contested | Pick'em/player-vs-house products (e.g., PrizePicks, Underdog) operate in Texas without a state license, relying on the same skill-game arguments disputed by the 2016 AG opinion. No specific statute or enforcement action addresses pick'em formats as of 2026. | |||
| West Virginia | Contested | The West Virginia Lottery Commission sent PrizePicks a cease-and-desist letter in 2022, arguing its against-the-house pick'em format meets the statutory definition of "sports wagering." House Speaker Roger Hanshaw asked the Attorney General to review the question; the AG's August 2025 opinion (persuasive, not binding) concluded the product likely does meet the sports-wagering definition's parlay/individual-performance language, but that the Lottery Sports Wagering Act's undefined "Daily Fantasy Sports" exclusion creates a definitional gap only the Legislature can resolve, leaving the question formally unsettled. PrizePicks responded by launching a peer-to-peer "Arena" product in West Virginia instead of its against-the-house pick'em game. This conflict between the Lottery Commission's enforcement position and the AG's inconclusive opinion supports contested. | |||
| Alabama | Prohibited | No DFS format (peer-to-peer or pick'em/player-vs-house) has been authorized since the AG's 2016 enforcement action against DraftKings and FanDuel; no distinct pick'em-specific ruling identified, but the same "material element of chance" reasoning and general prohibition apply. | |||
| Hawaii | Prohibited | Same AG Opinion 16-1 rationale applies to pick'em/player-vs-house formats; no operator is known to serve Hawaii. | |||
| Idaho | Prohibited | No Idaho-specific ruling on pick'em formats found; the same AG rationale (any paid, chance-contingent fantasy contest is gambling) would apply, and no operator is known to serve Idaho. | |||
| Maine | Prohibited | The MGCU found player-vs-house "pick'em" contests fall outside Maine's fantasy-contest framework, which requires wagers against other contestants (not the operator) and bars a winning outcome keyed to a single real team's score/performance. In an order dated Oct. 20, 2023, the MGCU fined Underdog Fantasy $391,850 (50 dollars x 7,837 Maine participants since Jan. 2021) and ordered it to stop offering pick'em contests in the state; Underdog had argued its products were "flexible fantasy contests" and said it would seek an adjudicatory hearing. In April 2024 the MGCU reported that 5 DFS operators - Underdog, Data Force, Bidventures, Boom Shakalaka, and Sportshub - no longer held Maine licenses after failing to renew. Peer-to-peer fantasy products (DraftKings, FanDuel, and PrizePicks' peer-to-peer "Arena" format) continue to operate as ordinary daily fantasy sports.? | |||
| Michigan | Prohibited | MGCB adopted rules in August 2023 prohibiting pick'em-style fantasy contests (selecting 2+ athletes and betting over/under on projected stat totals), the format used by PrizePicks and Boom Fantasy; Underdog Fantasy exited the Michigan DFS market over the rule change.? | |||
| Mississippi | Prohibited | Mississippi Gaming Commission executive director Jay McDaniel wrote fantasy operators in October 2023 stating that house-banked/single-performance pick'em contests are not permitted under the Fantasy Contests Act and that winning outcomes must rest on accumulated statistics across multiple athletes, not one player's single-game performance (i.e., no true player-vs-house pick'em). Underdog shut down its MS pick'em product in February 2024, then relaunched a peer-to-peer "Pick'em Champions" format in September 2025 after MGC review; it is the only MS-licensed real-money pick'em operator. PrizePicks offers only a free (no-prize) version in-state. 2024-2025 bills (H.B. 635, H.B. 874) proposing to amend § 75-76-5 and § 97-33-305 to address digital/modern fantasy formats have not passed. | |||
| Montana | Prohibited | Treated the same as peer-to-peer DFS under the internet-gambling ban; no operator confirmed active in Montana. | |||
| New York | Prohibited | New York bars single-player, against-the-house "pick'em" fantasy contests: 9 NYCRR § 5602.1(a)(4) prohibits "proposition betting or contests that have the effect of mimicking proposition betting," specifically contests "in which a contestant must choose, directly or indirectly, whether an individual athlete or a single team will surpass an identified statistical achievement, such as points scored." The Commission adopted this rule Oct. 3, 2023 after opposition from the Coalition for Fantasy Sports (PrizePicks, Underdog, Sleeper). Ordinary peer-to-peer daily fantasy sports contests are unaffected and remain legal. PrizePicks and Underdog kept offering against-the-house pick'em in New York after the ban and were later found to have operated without authorization: PrizePicks settled for about $15 million in Feb. 2024 and exited the state; Underdog settled for $17.5 million and exited in March 2025. Both have since relaunched in New York, but only with peer-to-peer "Pick'em"-branded products the Commission classifies as ordinary fantasy sports rather than the banned against-the-house format, so no against-the-house pick'em product is currently authorized and no separate tax rate applies to it. | |||
| North Carolina | Prohibited | The NC Lottery Commission's sports-wagering rules package (proposed effective Jan. 8, 2024) excludes from the DFS definition, and effectively bars, pick'em-style single-entry/player-vs-house fantasy contests that mimic proposition wagering, requiring such products to instead be licensed as sports wagering. | |||
| Virginia | Prohibited | Virginia's Fantasy Contests Act defines a legal "fantasy contest" as one with two or more players competing against each other, where no player competes against the contest operator -- excluding single-entry player-vs-house pick'em formats from the Act's safe harbor. | |||
| Washington | Prohibited | Player-vs-house pick'em products (e.g. DraftKings Pick6, FanDuel equivalents) are likewise unavailable to Washington residents under the same chance-based gambling definition. | |||
| Alaska | Not authorized | Pick'em-style fantasy contests are treated the same as peer-to-peer DFS by operators and trackers, with no Alaska-specific carve-out or ruling.? | |||
| Connecticut | Not authorized | Pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy formats are not offered by the state's three licensed fantasy- contest operators (the two tribes and CT Lottery Corp.); DCP treats pick'em-style contests as unauthorized sports wagering rather than licensed fantasy contests, and PrizePicks' and Underdog's own market lists exclude Connecticut from pick'em availability.? | |||
| Delaware | Not authorized | No statute or published DGE rule distinguishes pick'em/player-vs-house formats from peer-to-peer DFS, but DGE's October 2024 registration of PrizePicks in Delaware covers only its peer-to-peer "Arena" product rather than a house-side pick'em product. DGE appears to treat player-vs-house pick'em as unauthorized sports wagering while peer-to-peer contests remain registered as fantasy contests under 29 Del. C. §§ 4860-4873.? | |||
| Georgia | Not authorized | PrizePicks, a player-vs-house pick'em DFS operator, is headquartered in Atlanta and has operated nationally, including in jurisdictions where sports betting is prohibited such as Georgia, without Georgia-specific authorizing legislation. | |||
| Kansas | Not authorized | KRGC Executive Director Don Brownlee determined roughly ten operators were running illegal sports betting under a fantasy label, and KRGC sent cease-and-desist letters (beginning 2023-09-07) to at least six, treating player-vs-house pick'em/player-prop contests as unlicensed sports wagering rather than fantasy sports. Underdog (the only operator to confirm receiving a letter) pulled its pick'em product from Kansas, then returned in September 2024 under a peer-to-peer "Champions" format that KRGC's director of security said "complies with the spirit of Kansas law." Traditional house-vs-player pick'em thus remains unauthorized; reformatted peer-to-peer contests are treated as ordinary DFS. | |||
| Louisiana | Not authorized | Louisiana's fantasy-sports law requires contest prizes to be fixed and announced in advance, with outcomes reflecting participants' relative skill; it does not separately address pick'em (player-vs-house) formats. The state's two licensed fantasy-sports operators, DraftKings and FanDuel, offer only ordinary peer-to-peer contests; pick'em-style apps such as Underdog and PrizePicks are not licensed or confirmed available in Louisiana. No regulator rule, Attorney General opinion, or enforcement action addresses the pick'em format directly, so the gap reflects those operators staying out of the market (and Louisiana's added complexity of parish-by-parish DFS approval) rather than a specific ban.? | |||
| Minnesota | Not authorized | Mirrors the `dfs` vertical's gray-area status: no Minnesota statute specifically licenses or prohibits pick'em-style fantasy products. PrizePicks is listed as operating in Minnesota by multiple trackers, with its Pick'em product offered to residents 19+. Underdog Fantasy operates generally in the state, but sources flag that its Pick'em/College Pick'em availability varies by state based on local DFS rules and do not confirm current Minnesota availability.? | |||
| Nebraska | Not authorized | Same analysis as dfs: no Nebraska statute or NRGC rule distinguishes pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy formats; national pick'em operators (PrizePicks, Underdog) nonetheless operate in Nebraska on a skill-based fantasy-sports theory without NRGC enforcement, which regulates only racetrack-casino games and sports wagering, not fantasy sports. | |||
| North Dakota | Not authorized | Same analysis as dfs: no ND statute or Gaming Division guidance distinguishes pick'em/player-vs-house formats from peer-to-peer DFS. Secondary reporting (Action Network) describes PrizePicks as available to North Dakota users, operating without state regulatory oversight or vetting, under the general gambling statute rather than any authorization. | |||
| Oklahoma | Not authorized | Same gap as dfs; no statute found authorizing or banning pick'em-style fantasy contests, which operate as gray-market presence without enforcement. | |||
| Pennsylvania | Not authorized | Pennsylvania's Fantasy Contests Act framework (4 Pa.C.S. Ch. 3; licensing conditions at 58 Pa. Code Ch. 1205A) governs peer-to-peer fantasy contests where players compete against each other and the operator takes a cut of entry fees. Player-vs-house pick'em products (PrizePicks-style over/under prop picks against the house) do not fit that model and instead resemble sports wagering (4 Pa.C.S. Ch. 13C, which requires a sports-wagering license and 21+ age gate under 58 Pa. Code § 1408A.1); PrizePicks holds neither a PA fantasy-contest nor sports-wagering license, and its paid Player Picks/Team Picks products are geoblocked within Pennsylvania (only its free Streak game is offered).? | |||
| South Carolina | Not authorized | Player-vs-house pick'em fantasy formats face higher legal risk than peer-to-peer DFS because they more closely resemble sports wagering under §16-19-130; no specific statute or enforcement action confirmed as of 2026. | |||
| South Dakota | Not authorized | No South Dakota statute or regulator action addresses pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy formats specifically. PrizePicks and Underdog Fantasy both operate in South Dakota without a dedicated license, the same gap that applies to peer-to-peer daily fantasy sports.? | |||
| Utah | Not authorized | Player-vs-house pick'em fantasy products (e.g., PrizePicks, Underdog) operate in Utah in the same unregulated gray area as peer-to-peer DFS; no Utah enforcement action against pick'em operators had been reported as of October 2026. | |||
| Vermont | Not authorized | Vermont's fantasy sports statute (31 V.S.A. §§1330-1334) covers peer-to-peer contests and does not separately authorize player-vs-house "pick'em" formats. No Vermont Attorney General opinion or enforcement action addressing pick'em contests has been issued.? | |||
| Wisconsin | Not authorized | No Wisconsin statute or AG opinion addresses player-vs-house pick'em contests separately from classic daily fantasy sports; whether they are legal turns on the same untested skill-vs-chance question that affects daily fantasy sports generally under the state's gambling ban.? |