Verticals / Pick'em fantasy
Pick'em fantasy
Pick'em fantasy contests are legal and live in 10 states and DC, as of Oct 11, 2026. 5 states allow it in a limited form.
Pick'em / player-vs-house fantasy formats.
LiveLegal, not launchedLimitedContestedProhibitedNot authorizedRepealedNA
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) | No DC statute or regulator action was identified treating pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy formats differently from peer-to-peer DFS; both appear to fall under the same § 36-601.01(c)(17) fantasy-contest exclusion from "sports wagering." | |
| 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 | 12% OTHER (online) | Not confirmed to be separately distinguished from general DFS under HB 904's KHRGC licensing framework; treated as covered by the same regime pending further research. | |
| 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 separately targeted by the AG (see prediction_markets). | |
| 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 dfs above: no Rhode Island-specific tax or fee; pick'em-format operators (PrizePicks, Underdog) operate under the same 2016 AG opinion as classic DFS, with no RI regulator or AG statement specific to pick'em formats identified. OTHER (online) | Re-checked this audit session: pick'em/player-vs-house operators (PrizePicks, Underdog Fantasy) are listed as live/available to Rhode Island players on current operator state-availability pages, operating under the same 2016 AG "dominant factor" opinion as classic DFS (see dfs vertical) since Rhode Island has no format-specific statute distinguishing pick'em from classic DFS. Not independently confirmed against a Rhode Island AG or regulator statement specific to pick'em formats (unlike some states where regulators have taken a contrary position on player-vs-house formats). | ||
| 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 | Same exclusion as dfs above: no separate statutory treatment for pick'em formats was found, so the same gambling-definition exclusion under §6-7-101(a)(iii)(O) is understood to apply, but this has not been independently confirmed for pick'em specifically. OTHER (online) | No separate statutory treatment found; pick'em-style formats appear to fall under the same fantasy-sports exclusion as peer-to-peer DFS, but this was not independently confirmed for pick'em specifically. | ||
| 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, etc.) operate in Massachusetts under the same "fantasy contest" framework as peer-to-peer DFS; the Gaming Commission and AG have not taken public action to distinguish or restrict the format as of this writing. Status not independently confirmed with a pick'em-specific source; treat as provisional pending direct MGC/AG guidance. | |
| 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. Underdog's current NH registration status was not independently confirmed this session (only a promotional/affiliate listing was found). | |
| 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 confirmed fee/tax structure specific to pick'em products exists beyond the general Chapter 3774 fantasy-contest license fee (notes: secondary source only for the pick'em-specific characterization). OTHER (online) | Player-vs-house pick'em products (PrizePicks, Underdog) operate under the same fantasy contest licensing framework the OCCC applies to DFS; the Commission has not issued a formal ruling reclassifying pick'em as sports wagering, unlike several other states. Secondary source only. | |
| 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 ruling on the underlying legal theory was identified. | |||
| Illinois | Contested | Corrected on audit (2026-10-10) after reading the primary Public Act 104-0468 text directly (an earlier pass had wrongly relied on law-firm-tracker summaries that implied pick'em formats were "expressly permitted" by SB 3019's fantasy-contest definition — they are not). The statute defines "fantasy contest" to explicitly EXCLUDE "single-participant contests played against a fantasy contest operator" (230 ILCS 45/25-120.1) — i.e., the classic pick'em model (PrizePicks, Underdog, drafter.com, parlayplay.io: a player picks over/under props against house-set lines rather than against other entrants). Such formats therefore get NO path to licensure under the new 25-120 series. Section 25-120.3(f) preserves licensure *eligibility* for an applicant that previously ran single-player contests, but does not authorize continuing to offer them after the Act's effective date (2026-07-01) -- they simply fall outside the Act's licensing track altogether. "Sports wagering" under 230 ILCS 45/25-10 separately excludes only "fantasy contests as defined in Section 25-120.1," so a single-player pick'em product that doesn't qualify as a "fantasy contest" is not obviously excluded from the sports-wagering definition either, consistent with the IGB's pre-existing cease-and-desist theory that pick'em operators (Drafters Inc. d/b/a drafter.com, parlayplay.io) are offering unlicensed sports wagering. Status reverted to `contested` (not `operational`); no enacted path authorizes these products as of the new law. | |||
| 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 (see dfs) 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 (no fantasy-contest statutory exemption exists), though the opinion was not independently confirmed to name pick'em formats specifically. | |||
| 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 (outcome not confirmed this session). 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 under the `dfs` vertical. | |||
| 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. Secondary source only for the rule's exact date/scope; recommend verifying against MGCB's adopted administrative rule text. | |||
| 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 had not passed as of this research. | |||
| Montana | Prohibited | Treated the same as peer-to-peer DFS under the internet-gambling ban; no operator confirmed active in Montana. | |||
| New York | Prohibited | Confirmed via the Gaming Commission's own consolidated Chapter VI (IFS) rules text, footer-dated "updated (10/23)": 9 NYCRR § 5602.1(a)(4) bars "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 single-player, against-the-house "pick'em" format. Per secondary reporting (Vixio, The Lines), the Commission adopted this rule Oct. 3, 2023 after opposition from the Coalition for Fantasy Sports (PrizePicks, Underdog, Sleeper); peer- to-peer DFS contests remain permitted (see the `dfs` vertical) and are not affected. PrizePicks and Underdog continued offering against-the-house pick'em in NY after the ban and were later found to have operated without authorization: PrizePicks settled for ~$15M in Feb. 2024 and exited the state; Underdog settled for $17.5M and exited in March 2025 (per sbc-underdog-ny-settlement). Both have since relaunched in NY (PrizePicks obtained an IFS license Oct. 2025) but only with peer-to-peer "Pick'em"-branded products the Commission classifies as ordinary IFS, not the banned against-the-house format -- so no distinct dfs_pickem product is currently authorized, and no tax rate applies to it (see `dfs` vertical/tax_rates for the P2P products' 15% + 0.5% IFS tax instead). | |||
| 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 | HB145 (2026) requires all fantasy contests to have at least two entrants and bars "contests against the house," effectively barring single-entry player-vs-house pick'em formats. | |||
| 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 | CORRECTED from "limited" to "not_authorized" for the same reason as dfs (no enabling statute; presence of unenforced gray-market operators is not itself authorization). Treated the same as peer-to-peer DFS by operators and trackers; no Alaska-specific distinction found. | |||
| 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.); industry secondary sources report DCP treating pick'em-style contests as unauthorized sports wagering rather than licensed fantasy contests, and PrizePicks'/Underdog's own market lists exclude Connecticut from pick'em availability. No DCP cease-and-desist order text was independently located. | |||
| 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; industry trackers read this as DGE treating 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. No formal DGE ruling or cease-and-desist was located to confirm this directly. | |||
| 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 | The Louisiana Fantasy Sports Contests Act (Act 322/HB 484 of 2018) requires that prizes be "established and made known in advance" with values not determined by entry-fee volume, and that outcomes reflect participants' relative knowledge and skill; it does not separately define or address pick'em/player-vs-house formats. Confirmed directly against the Louisiana Gaming Control Board's own current licensed-operators page (lgcb.dps.louisiana.gov/ licensed-platforms/): as of this research the only two licensees listed under "Fantasy Sports" are "DK Crown Holdings, Inc. d/b/a DraftKings (F011703418)" and "FanDuel, Inc. d/b/a FanDuel (F011703419)" -- neither PrizePicks, Underdog, nor Betr appears, and DraftKings' and FanDuel's licensed products are ordinary peer-to-peer DFS contests (see the `dfs` vertical), not an against-the-house pick'em format. Consistent with that official list, independent operator-availability trackers and the operators' own state pages show the against-the-house pick'em apps are absent from Louisiana: Underdog's own legal-states information lists Louisiana among states where it "does not operate at all," and PrizePicks' Louisiana state page lists the state inconsistently across its Player/Team/ Culture Picks availability tables, with no distinct pick'em product confirmed live there. No LGCB rule, Attorney General opinion, or enforcement action specifically addressing the pick'em/player-vs-house fantasy format was found -- the gap appears to be driven by operator non-entry/non-licensure (and Louisiana's added complexity of parish-by-parish DFS approval) rather than a specific regulatory ban -- so this is marked not_authorized rather than prohibited. | |||
| 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. No Minnesota AG or regulator cease-and-desist action against pick'em-style products (of the kind seen in KS, MD, WV, WY) was identified this session. | |||
| 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). No specific PGCB order or enforcement ruling on pick'em was identified independent of this statutory-fit analysis. | |||
| 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 | South Dakota has no statute or regulator action specific to pick'em/player-vs-house DFS formats; PrizePicks and Underdog Fantasy are listed as available in South Dakota on state-availability comparisons, and an industry guide states South Dakota's laws do not specifically address daily fantasy sports and that pick'em apps operate without enforcement action, under the same absence of a dedicated regulatory regime as classic DFS (see dfs vertical, where AG Jackley publicly disclaimed prosecuting players but flagged operators' legal status as unresolved). Marked limited (not operational) given that unresolved operator-level legal status and the lack of any South Dakota-specific confirmation. | |||
| 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 has been identified as of this review. | |||
| Vermont | Not authorized | Vermont's DFS statute (31 V.S.A. §§1330-1334) does not name or separately address player-vs-house "pick'em" contests, and no Vermont AG opinion or enforcement action on pick'em was identified this session (unlike Virginia's 2024 AG opinion treating pick'em as sports betting, or Massachusetts's cease-and-desist letters). A low-confidence industry affiliate guide (not an official source) claims PrizePicks and Underdog both offer pick'em in Vermont; this was not independently verified. Marked limited (not operational) given the unresolved operator-level legal status under the classic-DFS statute and the absence of any Vermont-specific confirmation of pick'em's authorization. | |||
| Wisconsin | Not authorized | No Wisconsin statute or AG opinion separately addresses player-vs-house pick'em contests; under the same unresolved skill-vs-chance question affecting classic DFS (see dfs vertical), pick'em operators' legal status in Wisconsin was not independently confirmed as authorized or offered in this research pass. |