Are DraftKings, FanDuel, and other Daily Fantasy Sports apps legal in New Mexico?
Plain-English summary
The New Mexico Gaming Control Board asked whether Daily Fantasy Sports apps like FanDuel and DraftKings are legal in New Mexico. The Attorney General's answer is a careful "we cannot say it is."
Two things are clear. First, no New Mexico statute expressly authorizes DFS. The Gaming Control Act takes the position that any "gaming activity" is illegal in New Mexico unless authorized somewhere in state or federal law. Second, the federal carve-out for fantasy sports in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) does not save commercial DFS at the state level, because UIGEA explicitly does not displace state gaming law.
The harder piece is whether DFS counts as "gaming" under New Mexico's definition. A "game" under the GCA is an activity in which a player pays for a chance to win a prize, the outcome is "determined by chance even though accompanied by some skill," it is not played in a private context, and someone is profiting from operating it beyond their own winnings. The AG says all four prongs would need fact-finding for any specific DFS format, but the AG also signals that DFS operators almost certainly fail the "no person makes money operating the activity" prong, since DraftKings and FanDuel are publicly traded operators. That alone would likely take commercial DFS outside the private-game exception.
Rather than declare every DFS contest illegal, the opinion lays out the legal framework and tells the legislature it can fix the question by amending the Gaming Control Act.
What this means for you
If you are a New Mexico resident playing DFS
The AG did not declare DFS illegal, but did not bless it either. The opinion's reasoning suggests that commercial DFS contests on platforms like DraftKings and FanDuel almost certainly fall outside the private-context exception, because the platforms profit from the operation of the contest rather than only from playing as a participant. That means a court could find these games are unauthorized "gaming" under New Mexico law.
If you are weighing whether to keep playing, understand that the operators have not been authorized by the Gaming Control Board. The state has discretion to take enforcement action, and the opinion gives a fact-finder the framework to do so. Watch the 2026 legislative session for any DFS-specific bills.
If you operate or distribute a DFS product in New Mexico
Treat the opinion as a strong warning. The AG's analysis of the fourth factor (operators making money outside player winnings) is decisive language. Continuing to offer cash-prize DFS in New Mexico risks an enforcement action that puts the burden on the operator to prove its specific contest format qualifies for the private-context exception, an argument the opinion already finds weak.
If your product is a free-to-play or peer-to-peer skill contest where you do not collect a buy-in or take a cut of the pot, your case is stronger. The exception in Section 60-2E-3(O) was written for fantasy leagues run by groups of friends with no commercial operator.
If you sit on the New Mexico Gaming Control Board or a Pueblo gaming commission
The opinion confirms that DFS is not licensed under the GCA and is not exempt under any other state statute. That gives the Board a basis to pursue or refer enforcement against unlicensed DFS operators if it chooses. The opinion also flags the tribal-state gaming compact as a relevant constraint, which means coordination with tribal gaming partners is part of any DFS-policy decision.
If you are a New Mexico legislator
The AG asked you to act. The opinion notes that "the New Mexico Legislature may choose to clarify the legal landscape in New Mexico through a change to the Gaming Control Act specifically addressing DFS." Other states have done this both ways: New York authorized and regulates Interactive Fantasy Sports (White v. Cuomo, 192 N.E.3d 300), while others have left DFS in the gray zone the AG just described.
A legislative fix is the cleanest path. Whatever you choose (regulate, prohibit, do nothing), the opinion identifies the statute (the GCA) and the relevant definitions to amend.
If you are a gaming attorney
Treat the opinion as fact-driven. The AG declined to issue a categorical ruling and instead built a four-factor test from Section 60-2E-3(O). For a particular DFS format, you would need to argue:
1. Whether and to what extent skill predominates (the opinion cites People v. FanDuel and recognizes the chance-vs-skill split has gone both ways in other state courts).
2. Whether the contest is "played in a private context" given the platform's mass-multiplayer architecture.
3. Whether the operator profits from operating versus playing.
The opinion also signals that authoring kiosks or physical DFS terminals would tilt the analysis further away from the private-context exception, citing Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten.
Common questions
Q: Is DFS illegal in New Mexico?
A: The opinion does not say so categorically. It says no New Mexico statute expressly authorizes DFS, and that under the Gaming Control Act, any specific DFS contest could be illegal depending on chance-vs-skill, private context, and operator profit. The AG's reasoning strongly suggests that commercial DFS run by for-profit operators fails the test.
Q: Doesn't federal law allow DFS?
A: The federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act exempts fantasy sports from its own scope, but its savings clause says it does not affect state gambling laws. So state law controls.
Q: What about traditional season-long fantasy leagues among friends?
A: Those clearly fit the private-context exception in Section 60-2E-3(O). The AG describes them as the kind of activity the legislature meant to leave alone: small buy-ins, no commercial operator, no money made outside player winnings.
Q: Could the Gaming Control Board enforce against operators?
A: The opinion gives the Board a legal foundation to pursue enforcement if it chooses, but it does not order the Board to act. Enforcement decisions are within the Board's discretion.
Q: Is there pending legislation to legalize DFS in New Mexico?
A: The opinion calls on the legislature to clarify the law but does not identify a specific bill. Anyone watching DFS policy should monitor the 2026 New Mexico legislative session.
Q: What about tribal gaming compacts?
A: The opinion flags the state's obligations under the tribal-state gaming compact as a constraint to keep in mind. Any DFS legalization would need to be coordinated with tribal partners to avoid undermining the existing compact framework.
Background and statutory framework
New Mexico's Gaming Control Act is a permission-based regime: under Section 60-2E-4, gaming activity is permitted only if conducted under the GCA itself or another state or federal law that "expressly permits the activity or exempts it from the application of state criminal law." No New Mexico statute expressly mentions DFS or fantasy sports.
The federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ix), exempts fantasy sports contests with certain characteristics from the federal Internet-gambling scheme. But Section 5361(b) of UIGEA contains an explicit savings clause: nothing in UIGEA "alters, limits, or extends" state gambling law. The federal exemption is a federal-only safe harbor.
The four-factor test for whether something is a "game" under New Mexico law comes from Section 60-2E-3(O):
1. Player pays for a chance to receive a prize
2. The outcome is determined by chance even though accompanied by some skill
3. It is not played in a private context
4. Someone makes money operating the activity beyond winnings as a player
The fourth factor is where the opinion's reasoning is most pointed: DraftKings and FanDuel operate the contests for revenue, and those operators do not collect their revenue "through winnings as a player." The opinion footnotes that DraftKings is publicly traded.
The opinion also recognizes that the AG's role is limited under Section 8-5-2(D): the AG opines on questions of law, not questions of fact. Because chance-vs-skill in DFS is fact-intensive, the AG declined to make categorical findings and instead built a framework that a court or fact-finder can apply.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- NMSA 1978, §§ 60-2E-1 to -62 (Gaming Control Act)
- NMSA 1978, § 60-2E-3(O), (P) (Game and gaming definitions)
- NMSA 1978, § 60-2E-4 (Permitted gaming activity)
- NMSA 1978, §§ 6-24-1 to -34 (New Mexico Lottery Act)
- NMSA 1978, § 30-19-15 (Bookmaking)
- NMSA 1978, § 8-5-2(D) (Attorney General opinion authority)
- 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361(b), 5362(1)(E)(ix) (UIGEA)
Cases:
- Grine v. Peabody Nat. Res., 2006-NMSC-031, 140 N.M. 30
- Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten, 1996-NMSC-003, 121 N.M. 205
- People v. FanDuel, Inc., 2015 WL 8490461 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2015)
- White v. Cuomo, 192 N.E.3d 300 (N.Y. 2022)
Related AG opinion:
- N.M. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2025-07 (Feb. 26, 2025) (Jackpocket app legality)
Source
- Landing page: https://nmdoj.gov/publication/opinion/2025-17-opinion-regarding-legality-of-daily-fantasy-sports-via-online-applications-such-as-fanduel-and-draftkings/
- Original PDF: https://nmdoj.gov/wp-content/uploads/AG-Opinion-2025-17-Legality-of-Daily-Fantasy-Sports-via-online-applications.pdf
Original opinion text
December 23, 2025
OPINION
OF
RAÚL TORREZ
Attorney General
Opinion No. 2025-17
To:
Patrick Garrett, Chairman, New Mexico Gaming Control Board
Re:
Attorney General Opinion – Regarding legality of Daily Fantasy Sports via online
applications such as FanDuel and DraftKings
Question
Are Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS) contests via online applications such as FanDuel and DraftKings
legal under New Mexico law?
Short Answer
We cannot categorically conclude, based on the information available to us at this time, that DFS
contests via online applications are legal under current New Mexico law. DFS is not expressly
authorized by either the New Mexico Gaming Control Act or any other state law. The principal
test of the legality of any DFS contest is whether its outcome is "determined by chance even though
accompanied by some skill" and whether it is an activity played in a private context in which no
person makes money for operating the activity except through winnings as a player. However,
given the many forms of DFS, these determinations would need to be made on a case-by-case basis
after a review of the specific facts pertinent to a given DFS contest. Although we cannot arrive at
a general conclusion that would apply to the full panoply of DFS contests, we nevertheless provide
a legal framework within which an appropriate fact finder could analyze individual DFS
applications. In the alternative, a change in the law by the New Mexico Legislature would clarify
the answer.
Background
Sports betting is a form of gambling that involves, as its name suggests, wagering on sports. In
traditional sports betting, participants wager on the outcome of a specific sporting event or place
"proposition" bets on the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event other than the outcome of the
game (e.g., a specific athlete's performance). Other common wagers include "parlays" and "futures
bets," where participants place long-term wagers on events such as which team will win a
New Mexico Department of Justice
408 Galisteo Street | Santa Fe, NM 87501 | (505) 490-4060 | NMDOJ.GOV
championship. See Sports Betting Glossary, ESPN,
https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/38897025/sports-betting-glossary-odds-lines-spreads-futures-more (last visited Sept. 16, 2025). By definition, then, traditional sports betting
has historically been considered gambling. See id.
In contrast, fantasy sports allow participants to assemble a virtual team from a pool of real-world
athletes in designated sports leagues. Traditional fantasy sports leagues consist of fans who each
"own" their fantasy team and draft professional athletes to a fictional roster. Rostered athletes
accumulate a number of "points" for their fantasy team based on their performance in real life.
Each week, teams are matched up in head-to-head contests and whichever fictional roster
accumulates more points wins. At the end of the season, the fictional roster with the best record
wins the pot. There also exists a variant of traditional fantasy sports in which points are
accumulated and tabulated throughout the season, and the winner is determined by each roster's
season-long performance. In either case, these leagues usually have relatively small, informal buy-ins and are joined by groups of friends or colleagues. Whether played online or by hand, these
leagues require no centralized vendor to manage buy-ins, disperse winnings, or profit from
managing the enterprise.
DFS was originally created as a subset of fantasy sports games. See Michael Trippiedi, Daily
Fantasy Sports Leagues: Do You Have the Skill to Win at these Games of Chance?, 5 UNLV
GAMING L.J. 201 (2014). Unlike traditional, season-long fantasy sports contests, however, DFS
contests typically occur over much shorter time periods—typically a single day—and involve
hundreds or even thousands of people. DFS contests deviate notably from traditional fantasy sports
games in that any DFS player can put any athlete onto his or her team, and each athlete can be
added to a team an unlimited number of times. Additionally, unlike traditional fantasy sports
games, players can draft a new team each day for a wager, which functions as a buy-in. The goal
in DFS is to pick the highest scoring athletes who cost the least in order to net the most points
overall. DFS contests allow wagers for up to thousands of dollars, involve thousands of players at
a time, and allow each individual player multiple entries leading to top prizes of up to millions of
dollars. DFS games require a centralized vendor to manage and disperse buy-ins, wagers, and pay-outs, and these vendors profit from running the enterprise. See, e.g., Louis Bien, Everything you
ever wanted to know about daily fantasy sports and why they're getting sued, SB NATION (Nov.
24, 2015, at 9:58 AM MST), https://www.sbnation.com/2015/11/24/9791608/draftkings-fanduel-daily-fantasy-sports-lawsuit-new-york-internet-gambling.
There are numerous types of DFS games. "Draft style" and "pick'em" are the most popular
formats. See Cal. Att'y Gen., Nol. 23-1001, at 4–5 (Jul 3, 2025). Further, "50/50" games
guarantee participants a 100% return on their entry fee if they finish within the top 50% of all
players, while "head-to-head" games are played against a single opponent. How to Play Daily
Fantasy Sports, DRAFTKINGS, https://www.draftkings.com/how-to-play (last visited Sept. 16,
2025). Major online platforms also offer "Guaranteed Prize Pools" that provide tiered payouts
based on a participant's performance. Id. As such, the term "DFS" covers many formats: it is,
broadly speaking, the playing of fantasy sports on a daily basis with hundreds or thousands of other
unknown players on a platform such as DraftKings or FanDuel. But it is important to emphasize
that the degree of skill or chance involved in any particular DFS game varies by sub-type, as will
be discussed further in our analysis below.
Analysis
A.
Whether DFS contests are legal in New Mexico is a question of state law.
DFS contests were crafted to comply with the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act (UIGEA), which was passed in response to unregulated online poker gambling, but
specifically exempts fantasy sports betting. 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(ix). However, UIGEA, by its
own terms, cannot alter or limit state law. 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b) (UIGEA cannot "be construed as
altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law . . . prohibiting, permitting, or regulating
gambling within the United States"). We therefore must look to New Mexico state law for our
analysis.
In New Mexico, the Gaming Control Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 60-2E-1 to -62 (1997, as amended
through 2010) (GCA), is the governing authority over gaming. It was passed to limit and regulate
gaming to ensure honest competition free from criminal and corruptive elements and influences.
Section 60-2E-2(A). The GCA requires that gaming operators, manufacturers, and other gaming
industry stakeholders obtain licensure subject to oversight by the Gaming Control Board (Board).
Sections 60-2E-2(B), -6, -13, -14. The Board is responsible for regulating gaming in New Mexico
and does so by promulgating rules, issuing gaming licenses, conducting enforcement hearings, and
reporting to the Legislature. Section 60-2E-7.
The GCA broadly prohibits any gaming not approved by the Legislature:
Gaming activity is permitted in New Mexico only if it is conducted in compliance
with and pursuant to:
A. the [GCA]; or
B. a state or federal law other than the [GCA] that expressly permits the activity or
exempts it from the application of state criminal law, or both.
Section 60-2E-4 (emphasis added).
Nowhere in its plain language does the GCA expressly permit DFS or other fantasy sports betting.
Further, the GCA is clear that gaming is always non-compliant when it is unlicensed. Section 60-2E-13. No other New Mexico statute expressly permits DFS or other fantasy sports betting,
including those that appear to otherwise regulate activities of chance. See, e.g., New Mexico
Lottery Act (NMLA), NMSA 1978, §§ 6-24-1 to -34 (1995, as amended through 2007). And
although the federal UIGEA permits DFS, as noted above, it also expressly cannot abrogate state
law. 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b). Thus, if DFS constitute "gaming" under the GCA, then DFS is illegal in
New Mexico.
The GCA defines "gaming" as "offering a game for play." Section 60-2E-3(P). A "game" is defined
as
[a]n activity in which, upon payment of consideration, a player receives a prize or
other thing of value, the award of which is determined by chance even though
accompanied by some skill; "game" does not include an activity played in a private
residence in which no person makes money for operating the activity except
through winnings as a player.
Section 60-2E-3(O) (emphasis added).
The test of whether DFS is a "game" under New Mexico law is therefore (1) whether it is an
activity in which "a player receives a prize or other thing of value," (2) the amount of which is
"determined by chance even though accompanied by some skill," (3) whether it is played in a
private context, and (4) whether "no person makes money for operating the activity except through
winnings as a player." Id.
"This Court reviews the interpretation of a statute de novo." Grine v. Peabody Nat. Res., 2006-NMSC-031, ¶ 17, 140 N.M. 30 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Our main goal in
statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature." Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). "We look first to the plain meaning of the statute's words, and we construe
the provisions of the Act together to produce a harmonious whole." Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). However, "just as courts resist reading statutes in isolation, so too are courts
wary of reading selected snippets of a statute in isolation"; courts "do not construe statutory
phrases in isolation[, but] . . . as a whole." Ferlic v. Mesilla Valley Reg'l Dispatch Auth., 2025-NMSC-028, ¶ 20 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When considering questions
concerning the legality of gaming in New Mexico, we are additionally mindful of the state's
obligations under the tribal-state gaming compact. See Tribal Compacts, N.M. GAMING CONTROL
BD., https://www.gcb.nm.gov/new-mexico-gaming-control-board-office-of-the-state-gaming-representative/#TribalCompacts (last visited Nov. 12, 2025).
In the context of DFS, there is no question as to whether it is an activity in which a player may
receive a prize or other thing of value, so we turn to the remaining factors.
The NMLA authorizes certain games of chance in the state, but DFS contests facially do
not fit within the definition of "lottery game," nor are DFS platforms like DraftKings or FanDuel
registered with the New Mexico Lottery Authority. See also Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten, 1996-NMSC-003, ¶ 9 n.2, 121 N.M. 205 (citing State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, 1995-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 27–
29, 120 N.M. 562).
B.
The second factor: whether outcomes of DFS games may be determined by chance
even though accompanied by some skill.
Like traditional fantasy sports, many DFS contests appear to involve some measure of skill: players
must decide which athletes are best situated to earn more fantasy points on a given day, and
knowledge of strengths and weaknesses of teams and athletes assists a DFS player in being
successful. However, the outcome of many of the DFS contests also appears to be determined by
some degree of chance, as reflected in the variety in sporting events where numerous variables
could impact the outcome and individual athlete performance.
The result of any sporting contest appears to be difficult to predict with consistent and precise
empirical accuracy. Team sports seem to be impacted by extrinsic factors beyond a DFS player's
control, such as athlete injuries, success or failure of novel game strategies, star athletes having a
bad day, "bench" athletes having an unexpected breakthrough performance, extreme weather, and
more. On any given day, a player's DFS roster implicates multiple sporting events where numerous
variables may impact outcomes, and where each individual athlete's performance will vary. Each
day, variables change as the DFS player selects new rosters with seemingly endless possible
combinations of athletes to choose from, from among various sports leagues.
Whether any particular form of DFS, however, is determined by chance or skill requires a fact-based analysis of the characteristics of the DFS game itself. A fact finder might indeed determine
that the outcome of certain DFS games, like those of other types of gambling, may be inherently
determined by chance, even if also accompanied by some skill. See, e.g., People v. Fanduel, Inc.,
2015 WL 8490461, at *8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 11, 2015) (granting preliminary injunction upon a
showing that the State of New York would likely succeed on the merits of claim that DFS is a
"contest of chance" prohibited under the language of New York gaming law). Thus, the second
factor indicates that some types of DFS could be considered a "game" under the plain language of
New Mexico's statute. We do not, however, have before us sufficient facts concerning any
particular subtype of DFS to say with certainty that the second factor is met as to all DFS "contests
via online applications such as FanDuel and DraftKings."
C.
The third and fourth factors: whether DFS games are an activity played in a private
context in which no person makes money for operating the activity except through
winnings as a player.
After consideration of the second factor, a fact finder must then look to the third and fourth factors,
the exception: whether the activity is played in a private context "in which no person makes money
for operating the activity except through winnings as a player." Section 60-2E-3(O). This
exception appears to be directed at traditional fantasy sports leagues played among family, friends,
or colleagues.
We note with regard to the third factor that although the statute's exception is stated as activity
occurring "in a private residence," we read this as activity occurring in a private context—even if
not literally in someone's residence—to avoid an absurd result if, for example, a group of friends
chooses to participate in fantasy sports activities in a restaurant rather than having their food
delivered. Id.; see Cordova v. Wolfel, 1995-NMSC-061, ¶ 10, 120 N.M. 557 (reiterating that when
the literal language of a statute would lead to an absurd result, the statute should be construed to
avoid such result); see also Grisham v. Romero, 2021-NMSC-009, ¶ 23 (reiterating that, when
construing statutes, the courts' "goal and guiding principle is to give effect to the intent of the
Legislature," and, as such, statutory language is given its "ordinary and plain meaning unless the
Legislature indicates a different interpretation is necessary," therefore freeing courts from being
"bound by a literal interpretation of the words if such strict interpretation would defeat the intended
object of the Legislature"; and stating that courts therefore construe a statute "according to its
obvious spirit or reason," considering its history and background and reading the provisions "in
the context of the statute as a whole, including its purposes and consequences" (citation modified)).
Turning to DFS contests, we first observe that, contrary to traditional fantasy leagues, DFS contests
are not generally played in a private context, given the likely intended meaning behind that phrase.
Although DFS is commonly accessible via mobile application and, as such, could be played in a
private residence, the apparent purpose behind DFS is not the same as fantasy leagues—it is not a
social game generally played with or among family, friends, or colleagues. Rather, it generally
constitutes solo gaming intended for the financial gain or loss of individuals. Indeed, as indicated
above, DFS contests involve daily competition between hundreds or thousands of people who do
not know each other. This may lead a fact finder to conclude that the third factor is not met, but
the specific facts pertinent to DFS contests as a whole or each DFS contest evaluated would
necessarily impact that conclusion. We note, however, that if a fact finder concluded that DFS
contests are not generally played in a private context, such a conclusion may be exacerbated if
DFS kiosks were set up throughout the state. Cf. Citation Bingo, Ltd. v. Otten, 1996-NMSC-003,
¶¶ 21-24, 121 N.M. 205 (reasoning that, in the absence of express legislative approval, the
operation of power bingo machines is inconsistent with the Bingo and Raffle Act despite the
appellant's arguments suggesting that power bingo machines were merely a technologically
advanced version of bingo permitted by statute).
We thus arrive at the fourth factor. Even if a fact finder were to conclude that DFS contests or a
particular DFS contest are primarily played and/or intended to be played in a private residence, the
fact finder must still consider whether the activity is one "in which no person makes money for
operating the activity except through winnings as a player." Section 60-2E-3(O). It seems clear
that DFS is not such an activity because DFS operators make money through their operation of
their games. As such, it appears that such games depart from traditional fantasy leagues. See Otten,
1996-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 21-24; cf. N.M. Att'y Gen., No. 2025-07 at *5 (stating that NMSA 1978,
Section 30-19-15 (1979) bans accepting money for gambling "on the results of a race, sporting
event, contest or other game of skill or chance or any other unknown or contingent future event or
occurrence whatsoever" and clarifying that "whatsoever" means "of any kind or amount at all"
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). This is further highlighted by the fact that DFS
operators do not collect revenue "through winnings as a player."
DraftKings, for example, is a publicly traded company.
Nevertheless, as indicated above, we are aware that there may be other facts and factors at play
that might cause a fact finder to draw a different conclusion as to DFS contests or any particular
subtype of DFS.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the question presented calls upon us to assume specific factual circumstances in
connection with the full panoply of DFS games offered by DraftKings and FanDuel and surveyed
only summarily above. We are, however, neither a tribunal nor a fact-finding body, so we cannot
reach a definitive legal conclusion as to the legality of DFS contests as a whole or any particular
DFS game.
While we have answered questions of law in the gaming arena where the underlying facts are not
in dispute, the degree of fact-finding required in the DFS space places this inquiry beyond the
scope of Section 8-2-5(D). Moreover, once the operative facts have been found, the statutory
language "determined by chance even though accompanied by some skill" may require some
degree of additional construction before it can be decided with legal certainty whether DFS is legal
in New Mexico. Section 60-2E-3(O).
Accordingly, we provide here our analysis of the legal framework under which a fact finder and/or
a court of competent jurisdiction would endeavor to reach a legal conclusion as to the legality of
DFS, including DraftKings and FanDuel and the many offerings each vendor provides, under New
Mexico law. See, e.g., White v. Cuomo, 192 N.E.3d 300, 304 (2022) (deeming Article 14 of New
York's Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law authorizing and regulating interactive
fantasy sports (IFS) contests constitutional). In the alternative, the New Mexico Legislature may
choose to clarify the legal landscape in New Mexico through a change to the Gaming Control Act
specifically addressing DFS.
Please be advised that our response to your opinion request is a public document and is not
protected by the attorney-client privilege. If this office may be of further assistance, or if you have
any questions regarding this opinion, please let us know.
RAÚL TORREZ
ATTORNEY GENERAL