Churchill Downs, NYRA and Stronach Move to Dismiss the Horseplayers' "Rigged Pools" RICO Suit

Seven horseplayers say computer-assisted wagering has turned American pari-mutuel pools into an illegal gambling operation. The tracks and tote companies say the bettors cannot point to a single wager the syndicates affected, and a hearing is reported for 9 October.

• The Stronach Group, Churchill Downs, the New York Racing Association and tote and wagering companies filed five motions to dismiss a proposed racketeering class action in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York on 16 September, according to the court docket
• The suit, Dickey v. The Stronach Group, alleges that rebates, faster access to betting hubs and late bets give computer-assisted wagering (CAW) syndicates an unlawful edge over ordinary horseplayers
• The defendants argue the players "do not even identify a single wager that they made where CAW was even implicated", according to BloodHorse
• The amended complaint brings a RICO count and 13 other claims under common law and seven states' consumer laws, on behalf of everyone in the US who bet into "CAW-impacted" thoroughbred pools without a CAW account
• A hearing on the motions is scheduled for 9 October, BloodHorse reports; NYRA tightened its own CAW cut-offs to one minute before post in February

From One Bettor to Seven, and Fourteen Counts

The case began on 24 October 2025, when Colorado horseplayer Ryan Dickey, represented by Hagens Berman, sued The Stronach Group in federal court in New York. The first amended complaint, filed on 27 February 2026, added six more players, from California, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and New York, and names as defendants The Stronach Group and Stronach Group Services, the tote company AmTote International, Elite Turf Club, Churchill Downs, United Tote, the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and Racing and Gaming Services (St. Kitts). The case is before Judge Joan M. Azrack.

The central claim is under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), with mail fraud, wire fraud and operating an illegal gambling business as the alleged predicate acts. The complaint argues that the pools "are not being operated lawfully as pari-mutuel wagering and have become illegal gambling operations". It describes rebates that cut CAW players' effective takeout, using the example of a 20% takeout reduced to 7% by a 13% rebate, and alleges that the AmTote hub can process "up to 2,000 bets/second from a single client". It says Elite Turf Club, which places CAW business into the pools, is owned 80% by Stronach and 20% by NYRA. The other 13 counts include conversion, unjust enrichment, conspiracy and claims under the consumer protection laws of California, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado and New York.

The Defence: No Wager, No Injury, No Standing

Five motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim were entered on the docket on 16 September. The memoranda are not publicly available on the court's free archive, and the arguments below are as reported. According to BloodHorse, the defendants say the players' "real complaint is not with pari-mutuel wagering itself, but with the lawful and commonplace business practices" of the industry, that they "do not even identify a single wager that they made where CAW was even implicated", and that the defendants' conduct is "so far removed from" the alleged injuries that the players "cannot establish Article III standing". Casino.org reports that the defendants also argue that odds are set by thousands of individual wagering decisions rather than by the tracks. The bettors respond that their injuries "are not so attenuated that they lack standing", according to Law360.

The parties set out their positions earlier in pre-motion letters. The Stronach defendants called the case "a headline-grabbing, facially futile RICO suit" and said that "CAW bettors access the same data as other bettors; they simply crunch it differently", according to Thoroughbred Daily News. Churchill Downs and United Tote said that "no amount of rhetoric can transform a basic feature of wagering into racketeering". Steve Berman, for the plaintiffs, said the case "concerns the weaponization of technology to siphon value from the Class". Discovery has been stayed since February pending the motions.

Causation Is the Plaintiffs' Hardest Problem, and the Defendants Know It

RICO requires a plaintiff to show a concrete injury to business or property caused by the racketeering. In a pari-mutuel pool, every bettor's payout depends on every other bet, so late CAW money can shift the final odds on a winning ticket. But a losing ticket loses regardless, and a winning one has to be shown to have paid less because of specific CAW bets. That is the gap the defence is pressing: an industry-wide practice that plausibly lowers ordinary players' returns on average is not the same as a traceable loss on an identified wager. A RICO claim built on market structure rather than identified transactions faces a high bar, and the illegal-gambling predicate asks a judge to find that state-sanctioned pari-mutuel wagering has become something else. The plaintiffs have a strong story; the question is whether it is a legal claim.

Racing Is Already Answering the Complaint Outside Court

Whatever happens on 9 October, the case has already coincided with a shift in how tracks handle CAW. NYRA began throttling CAW activity at one minute to post in all pools from 5 February 2026, on top of its existing two-minute cut-off in win pools, and its chief executive David O'Rourke said the change would reduce odds volatility and "increase pricing transparency". Del Mar and Santa Anita barred CAW accounts from win pools two minutes before post in 2025. Those restrictions address the most visible grievance, late odds drops after the field leaves the gate, without conceding the legal case. For racing, whose handle depends on both syndicate volume and the recreational players who feel squeezed by it, the commercial problem the suit describes remains whether or not the RICO claim survives.

A dismissal would end the most aggressive legal challenge to CAW so far, but not the argument. If the claims survive, discovery would open the rebate agreements and hub arrangements that the industry has never had to disclose.