It started a few years ago: the calories and sodium that you are consuming when you sit down to eat a Big Mac or a Whopper stare at you from the side of the package. This phenomena occurred because of something called obesity lawsuits–legal claims by people who consume fast food at least a few times a week that they didn’t realize what they were putting into their bodies. Read on to learn about obesity lawsuits, their popularity, and the legal arguments behind them.

What Are Obesity Lawsuits?

The national conversation about what we eat and what is in it isn’t new, but it has exploded recently, from First Lady Michelle Obama’s initiatives to the school systems and even popular media. The food and drink community has been changing the way they make, market, and package foods, and it has all been either a direct result or a symptom of obesity lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits that fit into this category come from people who blamed fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight. They said that they weren’t aware of just how many calories they were consuming and that the companies used false advertising to say that they were healthier than they actually are. These lawsuits, as an overarching theme, also “claim that companies failed to warn consumers of the harmful contents of their food; that food advertising is misleading or deceptive; that food is addictive…or that defendants’ food contributed to consumers’ obesity.”

Obesity lawsuits have been around for decades. At least 26 states have banned any type of lawsuit against a fast food company, both restaurants and manufacturers. The Washington Post goes into more detail about these laws, stating they are:

‘Commonsense consumption’ laws, which prohibit people from suing food purveyors for making them fat, giving them diabetes, or adding to their high blood pressure.

LegalZoom points out that even though there isn’t a federal ban on the cases, there is a distinct bias from the system, which is why the ban proceeded with so much support.

Those who were for the ban on obesity lawsuits spoke out on Fox News:

‘The bill seeks to block lawsuits by people because they ate too much and got fat,’ says Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, one of the bill’s sponsors.

‘We should not encourage lawsuits that blame others for our own choices and could bankrupt an entire industry,’ notes Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

In a conversation with The New York Times, the Steven C. Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association, which represents the 858,000 small and large restaurant businesses around the country, said:

Within the industry, it has gotten everyone’s attention. While we are concerned, we think them to be frivolous.

But are these lawsuits frivolous, or are they surrounded by the stigma against the obese?

Obesity Lawsuits in Court

Negligence

Many of the plaintiffs that go up against fast food restaurants say that the food they receive is not as healthy as the restaurant would have them believe and that the quality of the food is not what was advertised in commercials. One of the most prolific cases against a fast food restaurant, Ashley Pelman et. al. v. McDonald’s Corporation, alleged that McDonald’s food items were dangerous for consumption and that McDonald’s was negligent in warning its customers. When proving this negligence, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The danger was not apparent to the average consumer;
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use;
3. The plaintiff’s obesity was caused by the food in question; and
4. The harm would not have occurred had an adequate warning been given.

The judge who presided over this case said that:

If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.

He dismissed the case.

Proving negligence can be hard, especially in situations of other unhealthy choices on the part of the consumer. This particular case did not do that, but it is held in high regard as one of the foremost cases for how to successfully sue a fast food company for negligence–those who do try to sue make sure that they can prove those four points before continuing onward.

Accountability

But what accountability does the fast food restaurant have? Those who have filed lawsuits against fast food restaurants have often said that the food is “unsafe for consumption,” due to its nutritional content, which is a harder sell in the court systems as there is no legal limit. For example, this is the same argument used against firearm manufacturers as well, but in those cases the arguments have not succeeded.

Plaintiffs also try to prove the manufacturer’s intent to sell the food using advertisements, public statements, and even internal documents. Once again returning to Pelman, they claimed that the promotional materials that said things like “Big N’ Tasty Everyday” encouraged regular consumption. They also quoted one of the nutritionists that McDonald’s featured on its website:

Our wide range of choices on our menu makes it possible for people to eat there three times a day if they wanted to.

Changing Habits and Addiction

The plaintiffs must be able to convince the courts that, if they had been given the appropriate and correct warnings about the food they were consuming, they would have changed their dining habits to something healthier. In other words: if the plaintiff had known that they were consuming something that was bad for them, would they continue to eat there?

There is really no foolproof way to determine that, but the courts must ask questions to make assumptions. Questions might include their current eating habits and if they lost any weight since they ceased visiting the fast food restaurant.

Overall, these cases are very hard to prove because of the amount of guesswork that needs to go in on all sides. A McDonald’s spokesman even said:

I don’t think that any of these lawsuits will prevail unless and until there is proof that fast food companies are intentionally and maliciously putting stuff into their food in an effort to make people ill or to addict them to the product. There is no proof of that–no hint of any proof of that–and I think that missing element makes these sorts of claims very difficult for courts to take seriously.

Results of Obesity Lawsuits

We first saw nutritional labels going onto our fast food containers around 2003 when the government believed that it would help Americans make healthier choices about their meals. This movement was all part of the Menu Education and Labeling Act that was proposed to make those choices easier. While the bill seemed to stall, McDonald’s was actually one of the first companies to start listing calories on its menus, saying it was to help customers make healthy choices.

There have been some modest improvement over the last ten years in some of the offerings available at fast food restaurants. According to Margo G. Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DC,

Given the role of fast food in Americans’ diets, restaurants are in a unique position to help improve the diet quality in the U.S. by improving the nutritional quality of menu offerings. Modest improvements in average nutritional quality of menu offerings across eight fast-food restaurant chains were observed, which is consistent with both legislative efforts (e.g., banning trans fat) and the industry’s own statements about creating healthier menu options. However, considering that fast food is ubiquitous in the U.S. diet, there is much room for improvement.

Still, there hasn’t been much improvement in the choices that people are making while they are actually in the restaurant. In fact, fewer than half of the patrons at fast food shops actually notice that their food has calories listed, and it also really didn’t have an impact on what they ordered.

Conclusion

Obesity lawsuits and litigation are a problem that we need to solve, and that might just start with better education on all fronts. The stamping of calories and nutritional content on the sides of cups and the backs of hamburger cartons is a start for the companies. Now it is up to consumers to make the right choices for themselves. The argument will likely continue onward, even as more states push toward a complete ban on the obesity lawsuits.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: MEAL Act

Food and Drug Administration: Summary of Changes in the FDA Food Code 2013

Additional

Bloomberg Business: McDonald’s Obesity Case Can’t Proceed as Group Suit

CBS News: McDonald’s Wins Fat Fight

Fox News: House Votes to Ban ‘Obesity Lawsuits’ Against Fast Food Industry

Center for Science in the Public Interest: Availability of Nutrition Information From Chain Restaurants in the United States

The New York Times: Teenagers’ Suit Says McDonald’s Made Them Obese

Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law: Fast-Food Lawsuits and the Cheeseburger Bill: Critiquing Congress’s Response to the Obesity Epidemic

Sun Sentinel: Fending Off the Big Mac Attack

Washington Post: These 26 states Won’t Let You Sue McDonald’s For Making You Fat

ABC News: Obese Man Sues Fast-Food Chains

Bloomberg Law: Where’s the Beef? The Challenges of Obesity Lawsuits

Huffington Post: Calorie Labels at Fast Food Restaurants Don’t Make a Difference

LA Times: Liability, Guns and the Law

Legal Zoom: Can You Sue a Restaurant For Making You Obese?

The New York Times: McDonald’s to Start Posting Calorie Counts

NPR: Nutrition Labels For Fast Foods

Organic Consumers Association: Junk Food/Obesity Lawsuits Alarm U.S. Food Giants

Politico: The Plot to Make Big Food Pay

Time: Can You be Fat and Fit — or Thin and Unhealthy?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obesity Lawsuits: Who’s to Blame When Fast Food Makes You Fat? appeared first on Law Street.

Multiple public and private agencies make up the child welfare systems across the country. Although the primary responsibility falls on the shoulders of state governments, the federal government supports the states through funding, program development, and legislative initiatives. Both state and federal governments are essential to the process. The child welfare system’s mission is to create safe and permanent environments for children and to strengthen family units. It is an immense and complex project. So immense and complex, however, that important aspects of child safety fall through the cracks. Oversights are often devastating. Read on to learn more about the challenges that abate the U.S. Child Welfare Systems’ mission.

Overview of Child Welfare Systems

Child welfare systems generally do the following:

Receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect, provide services to families that need assistance in the protection and care of their children, arrange for children to live with kin or with foster families when they are not safe at home, and arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care.

Public and private agencies also work to provide services such as “in-home family preservation services, foster care, residential treatment, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, parenting skills classes, domestic violence services, employment assistance, and financial or housing assistance.”

The Children’s Bureau, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the primary federal institution working with state and local agencies to implement federal child and family legislation. Collaboratively, they create programs that prevent child abuse and neglect. Such efforts are authorized by the Child Abuse and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974. CAPTA provides “federal funding to states in support of prevention, assessment, investigation, prosecution, and treatment activities” and awards “grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs and projects.”

The Process

First, a concerned person reports suspected child abuse or neglect. More often than not, this person is a “mandatory reporter,” a person required by law to submit a report if he or she suspects child abuse or neglect. Mandatory reporters include individuals who have regular contact with children such as social workers, school personnel, healthcare workers, mental health professionals, child care providers, medical examiners or coroners, and law enforcement officers. Approximately 48 states and other territories have mandatory reporter laws. In many states, every person, regardless of occupation, is legally required to make such a report.

After a report is submitted, it is either “screened in” or “screened out” depending on the amount of information and sufficiency of evidence. If a report is screened in, a Child Protective Services Caseworker will come in and assess the situation. He or she will talk to the child and relatives. If a child is suspected of being in immediate danger, then the child will be brought to a shelter, foster home, or relative’s house while the investigation plays out. At the end of the investigation, the case worker will typically either find the case unsubstantiated or substantiated depending on the evidence. The agency can then initiate a court action if it feels the authority of juvenile court is required during the trial in order to remove the child from the home. In substantiated cases where there has been child abuse or neglect, the threat is labeled as low, moderate, or high. Depending on the severity of the case, the caseworker may recommend community-based resources and service systems, or recommend complete removal of the child from the home. Low-risk parents are often provided support or treatment services, while high-risk parents may be indicted on criminal charges.

Child Welfare System Challenges

Many of the most severe challenges in the Child Welfare System lie in the Foster Care System. Nearly 400,000 children in the United States are living in the foster care system without permanent families.

Over-Institutionalization of Children

You don’t need to be a licensed therapist to know that a positive family dynamic is essential to a child’s well being and mental health. Today, a disturbing amount of children in the child welfare system are placed in institutions rather than homes. Approximately 57, 000 children are living in group placements. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, a children’s advocacy group, recently published a report on this serious issue, advocating that “secure attachments provided by nurturing caregivers are vital to a child’s healthy physical, social, emotional and psychological development throughout his life.”

Children in group placements are at greater risk of abuse and arrest. One in seven children in the child welfare system lives in group placements and 40 percent of those children do not have “documented behavioral or medical need that would warrant placement in such a restrictive setting.” Young people stay in group placements for an average of eight months, although research recommends a stay of three-to-six months for those who require residential treatment. Kids in group placements also suffer from an inappropriate mixing of ages. According to the Society of Research in Child Development, young adults are more susceptible to peer influence. Younger children can suffer from being placed with older kids with behavioral health problems.

Insufficient Background Checks

A major source of controversy in the child welfare system is adequate background checks performed by case workers. There is an overload of cases of foster parents with a criminal background taking in children. For example, Oklahoma is currently under investigation for child abuse and neglect in its foster care system. A recent report, conducted after the death of a 20-month-old boy in foster care, showed that less than 5 percent of the 125 cases investigated for abuse in Oklahoma contained criminal background checks for foster parents.

Caseloads

Caseworkers across all child welfare systems consistently have extensive caseloads. The more cases, the less time and effort a caseworker can devote to each individual child. It also minimizes the ability for a child and caseworker to develop a meaningful relationship, and caseworkers are sometimes blamed for child abuse or neglect in foster homes under their supervision. For example, Catherine Davis, a family services agency caseworker in New Jersey, was suspended after seven-year-old Faheem Williams was found starved to death in his home. His two brothers were also malnourished and burned. Davis had somewhere between 99 and 107 cases. The Child Welfare League of America recommends that “workers carrying ongoing in-home protective services cases…carry no more than 15-17 families.”

Aging Out

When foster children turn 18, they age out of the child welfare system. Many of these children move forward with very little or no support at all. In 2012, 23, 396 foster children aged out of the system. Almost 40 percent were homeless or couch surfing, and 48 percent were unemployed. Fifty percent experienced issues with substance abuse, while 60 percent of the young men had been criminally charged. Nearly a quarter of those aging out did not obtain a high school diploma or GED, and only six percent had graduated with a two or four-year degree.

Case Study: Active Class-Action Suit MD. vs Perry

On behalf of the children in the Texas child welfare system, the Children’s Rights Law Firm of New York, along with co-counsel Haynes & Boone, Yetter Coleman and Canales & Simonson, filed suit against the state of Texas  for “violations of plaintiff children’s constitutional rights, including their right not to be harmed while in state custody and their right to familial association.”

M.D. is one representative of the plaintiff children. She entered foster care at the age of eight. Although initially sent to live with relatives, she returned to state custody after sexual abuse occurred in the home. She moved to multiple placements, including group institutions, where her mental health suffered. When the original complaint was filed, M.D. “lived in a restrictive short-term therapeutic placement with no visitors or basic privileges.”

The main focus of Children’s Rights in this suit is to give children in the Texas welfare care system permanency, whether obtained from reunification with relatives or adoption. Children’s Rights primarily looked at cases where the child had been in foster care for a minimum of 12-18 months, as after a year to a year and a half, foster children’s success rates plummet. Chances for emotional and psychological distress increase and they often act out and exhibit unruly behavior, severely ruining their chances for adoption/permanency. Children without a permanent home age-out without any kind of safety net.

The suit was filed March 29, 2011 and is currently in progress. Children’s Rights is currently in litigation with eight other states as well.

Conclusion

Child welfare systems are broken and reform is inevitable. Travesties occur way too often and are not publicized enough. We need to give foster children a fighting chance to survive on their own after 18. That starts with creating a safe and permanent environment for them while in the welfare system. Turning 18, after a lifetime of struggle and little support, does not make an adult. Fortunately, there are multiple advocacy groups across the country on a mission for reform.

Sources

Primary

Child Welfare Information Gateway: How the Child Welfare System Works

Additional

AFSCME: Caseloads

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Too Many Kids in U.S. Child Welfare Systems Not Living in Families

CCAI: Facts and Statistics

Children’s Rights: In Oklahoma, Asking a Few Questions Might Have Prevented a Boy’s Tragic Death

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect

The New York Times: Caseworkers Say Overload Makes it Risky For Children

Society of Research in Child Development: The Detrimental Effects of Group Placements/Services For Youth With Behavioral Health Problems

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Child Welfare System: Kids Falling Through the Cracks appeared first on Law Street.

The NFL regular season is coming to a close, and with it, a plethora of fantasy-football dreams. Typically, friends draft a team of their favorite stars before the start of the season and depending on their team’s performance, a fantasy dueler can win bragging rights or bets made within the group. Except today, what started as a competition among friends has evolved into a multi-million dollar enterprise. Websites like DraftKings and FanDuel have capitalized on this competition by changing the fantasy landscape. These sites hold weekly competitions allowing users to choose players weekly for a fee. Although this option bypasses the heartache of seeing a number one draft pick go down with a season-ending injury, this type of competition raises some interesting concerns. Instead of bragging rights, friends can compete for millions of dollars against thousands of players across the globe by depositing cash for a particular contest. This sounds wonderful on paper, except it also sounds like gambling, too. Read on and find out whether you should cosign your fantasy involvement.

 What’s the latest news in the fantasy world?

Like the fantasy pro, I’ve endured the pleasure and heartbreak that fantasy football conjures. For instance, two weeks ago week I won $500. Nevertheless, the excitement that a touchdown catch enlivens is comparable to blackjack. The rush in seeing the craps table explode with shouts of hope and trembles of fear is similar to the anxiety of watching the player that you almost drafted “go-off” for three touchdowns. Although there are plenty of gambling outlets for duelers like myself to feast on, discouragement kicked in after reading this article about the Denver Broncos signing a partnership with Draftkings. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t be fair if the number one offense was in cahoots with the fantasy source. Although it’s doubtful that Peyton Manning gets a call during the game to throw an interception, these competitions craft an accessible outlet for fantasy football, which inadvertently targets kids and young adults to compete/bet/win. That worry grew after researching the inner-workings of these one-day fantasy events.

As my fellow New York Law School alum Andrew Blancato correctly noted in his article about fantasy sports gambling, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) outlaws online sports gambling. The fine distinction is based on skill and chance. But when did this all begin? Years ago, fantasy sports was limited to drafting teams before the season and hoping your team excelled in their respective positions. Today a user can bet online anywhere from 25 cents to upward of a thousand dollars on his team’s weekly performance. When did Football Sunday transform into caring more about the points a player scored, rather than the outcome of the game itself?

Image courtesy of Evangelos Siozos

When did fantasy become financial?

In July 2009, Nigel Eccles and Tom Griffiths altered the fantasy sports arena by launching their newly minted one-day fantasy competitions. Eccles, the CEO of FanDuel, based his idea on a simple premise: Letting people pick professional athletes daily and bypassing the debilitating effects of injury risks associated with season-long tournaments. Instead of one bite at the apple, these businesses capitalize on multiple game-day bites.

In 2010, Allen Tippy explained the phenomena that recently started interrupting your favorite TV or radio show with a 30 second advertisement.  “Fantasy is the steak,” Mr. Lowitz says. “We just want to be the mashed potatoes on the side.” After gorging on the traditional fantasy platter, Tippy made the change to one-day fantasy competitions.

I search out the weak players…I played in the same traditional fantasy baseball league with a group of lawyers from Mobile, Alabama for about 15 years.

That’s right. The success of one-day fantasy sports is semi-driven by the fantasy fanatics, those who play and switch their line-ups with 30 seconds to spare before the game begins. In fact, by employing these modern tactics, a one-a-day dueler can exploit an opponent’s weakness by staying alert of all injuries and penalties that keep a player sidelined. Interestingly, this awareness sounds just like skill, except in one-a-days there are a few caveats.

For example, unlike traditional gambling site, there is a higher commission taken out by the one-day fantasy servicer. Further, what separates a winner from the host of losers requires beating 60 percent of them to make a profit. Eccles calls it “fantasy for the ADD generation.” Mr. Eccles hits it on the nose, considering FanDuel paid out roughly $500 million this year alone.

After FanDuel captured 70 percent of the daily fantasy sports market, DraftKings snatched the remaining 25-30 percent. Fast forward four years: these simple startups have catapulted to infamy and success. In fact, the Fantasy Sports Trade Association acknowledged that about $1.7 billion is spent each year on fantasy sports in the U.S. and Canada. Couple this with an infinite pool of investors and big-name endorsers and one is left to wonder if any regulatory measures have been taken to ensure fair play.

So…is this even legal?

In 2006, Congress passed the UIGEA, which basically outlawed any online sports gambling that relied strictly on chance instead of skill. Whether or not fantasy sports are chance- or skill-related is a question for Socrates; however, what has been done since 2006 is quite startling, especially considering the mammoth explosion of this business. Vice Sports explained it best:

The debate over the legality of DFS revolves around the definition of skill versus chance. DFS games fall somewhere in between pure games of skill (chess, checkers) and pure games of chance (lottery, bingo). Picking a winning lineup involves a level of skill, intelligence, and talent that can be improved but also, Peyton Manning could tear his ACL in warm-ups and sorry, bro, your lineup is done.

Great, so playing fantasy sports involves both a touch of skill and a dash of luck. Easy, done. But some questions still linger. For example, since 2006, the marketing landscape changed, technology evolved, and fifth graders were given cell phones. So, what exactly is going on?

On December 2, 2014, lawyers lodged formal complaints against FanDuel in Florida Federal Court. The allegations included claims of deceptive practices by misleading customers, which tiptoes the line into fraudulent territory. Basically, FanDuel targeted customers through its promise to double any money deposited into its website. Yet, its “double your deposit” promotion didn’t double its customers’ deposits upon joining. Instead, if a user deposited $200, her money was entered into a formula, which requires a contestant to spend $5,000 in order to receive the initial $200 promised payback. This wasn’t the only lawsuit targeting the fantasy giants.

That’s when I was introduced to Christopher Langone, who filed pleadings in Illinois Federal Court to challenge the winnings of Patrick Kaiser, a FanDuel enthusiast. Months later, Langone filed another action against DraftDay.com and bypassed any jurisdiction issues by filing in San Antonio, Texas, DraftDay’s state of incorporation. What initially seemed like a theoretical query based on whether fantasy sports involved more skill than chance, created a battle of mythical proportions, perfect for the great professors who teach me.

What is being done?

In short, nothing yet. Some Federal Courts have reacted, using the judiciary power bestowed upon them to influence states to strike down fantasy football in Montana, Louisiana, Washington, Iowa, Arizona, and Puerto Rico. Or take Florida for example, where state law technically bans the “fantasy phenomenon,” and makes playing it a misdemeanor. But other than political riffraff and textualist toils over what chance and skill really are, the main concern for fantasy-player welfare has dissipated. As Mike Florio puts it,

In what would be a bizarre twist on point shaving, coaches and players could in theory be bribed to ensure that certain players will generate significant production, or that certain players will be shut down. Getting to coaches and assistant coaches who control the offensive game plan would be the most efficient approach. It also would help to grease defenders who would be inclined to slip on an invisible banana peel, springing a specific player for a touchdown or two. Or four.

Florio’s concerns express the same disbelief I have. Further, his article was written in July, way before Peyton endorsed Draftkings and Tom Brady joined DailyMVP.

Fanduel pays out 1 million dollars in prizes per day. Join my 1-day league http://t.co/oTvV4dzNZE

— Vince Wilfork (@wilfork75) August 23, 2014

With more and more players signing onto these fantasy startups, maybe it’s time to start paying attention to the inconspicuous tweets of NFL players. It’s not that Wilfork would miss a tackle to spring a runner 50 yards, it’s that he might be tempted to do so in order to capitalize on the same organization paying him to tweet.

Conclusion

Greed takes many forms. After witnessing the fall of the real estate market, we all saw the destructive nature of our fellow man. Like much of the law, Congress has slowly reacted to recent changes in technology. Today, kids and adults have online access at their fingertips. Although this doesn’t fit the bill as a pressing concern, it could become so. Anyone can click to verify that they are 18 years old in order to play on these sites. Further, not an iota of regulatory action has been taken since 2006. Although it is too early for the unforeseen consequences to materialize, it might already be too late to ensure that they don’t. Alas, chance and skill can only get a fantasy dueler so far. My hope is that there’s no one whispering in the players’ ears to strike that balance.

Resources

Primary

 Denver Broncos: Draft Kings, Broncos, Sign Partnership

Additional 

Law Street Media: Fantasy Sports: Good Fun or Illegal Gambling?

Wall Street Journal: Everyday fantasies

Boston: Single-Day Fantasy Sports

Vice Sports: The Daily Fantasy Sports Takeover

Forbes: Fanduel sued in court

Fox News; Gaming laws could pose risk for fantasy football craze

NBC: NFL Paying attention to Influence of high-stakes fantasy football leagues 

Evangelos Siozios

Evangelos Siozios is a student at New York Law School focusing on family law and real estate transactions. He is a 2012 Baruch Honors College Graduate whose interests include writing, exercising, and solving TV mysteries. Contact Evangelos at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fantasy Sports: Ready…Set…Bet! appeared first on Law Street.