A group of college athletes caught up in Iowa's sports betting investigation has taken their fight to a federal appeals court. On Thursday, September 24, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis heard arguments over whether to revive their lawsuit against the state investigators who used geofencing to identify athletes who opened betting apps.
The case is one of the most important legal tests yet of how law enforcement can use location data collected by sportsbooks — and it could shape how betting apps handle user privacy nationwide.
What the athletes claim
The lawsuit was brought by 27 current and former athletes from the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and a community college. They argue that investigators from the Iowa Department of Public Safety's Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
According to the athletes, DCI used geofencing technology to see when sports betting apps were opened in or near athletic facilities — without a warrant. Investigators then used that information to issue subpoenas and obtain targeted warrants, which led to criminal charges and NCAA discipline.
The athletes' lawyer, James P. Roberts, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which held that police generally need a warrant to obtain historical cellphone location records.
The lower court ruling
In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger of the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the case. Her ruling was notable for what it said and what it did.
She found that the warrantless search did violate the Fourth Amendment. But she granted the investigators qualified immunity, because the law on geofencing wasn't "clearly established" at the time. Under qualified immunity, government officials can't be sued for damages unless their conduct violated clearly established law.
That's the question now before the 8th Circuit.
What the judges asked
During arguments, the panel — Judges L. Steven Grasz, Bobby Shepherd and David R. Stras — raised concerns about how the law can keep up with technology.
Judge Grasz questioned whether, under the athletes' reasoning, the law "would never, ever be clearly established," given how quickly technology changes. Judge Shepherd noted that fast-moving technology makes it hard for police to know what's allowed.
Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan defended the immunity ruling. He also challenged whether athletes who used someone else's betting account have standing to sue; the state says 17 of the plaintiffs and intervenors were using another person's account.
The state also pointed out that sportsbooks are required to monitor geolocation and report suspicious activity to the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, and that users are told their data may be shared with law enforcement.
No date has been set for a ruling.
Background: the 2023 investigation
The case stems from a 2023 investigation that shook college sports in Iowa. DCI used a tool from GeoComply, the geolocation company used by major sportsbooks such as DraftKings and FanDuel, to identify betting activity near athletic facilities.
The investigation led to suspensions, lost NCAA eligibility and criminal charges. Many athletes were charged with underage gambling; of the 16 original plaintiffs who were charged, 12 pleaded guilty.
Four Iowa State athletes faced more serious charges of identity theft or tampering with records: Jirehl Brock, Paniro Johnson, Isaiah Lee and former player Eyioma Uwazurike, who had been drafted by the Denver Broncos in 2022.
Those charges were later dropped. The reason: GeoComply believed DCI had "exceeded the scope of its permitted use" of the tool, and revoked DCI's access in January 2024. Prosecutors in Story County dismissed the cases.
Why this matters for sports betting
Every legal sportsbook in the US uses geolocation to verify that bettors are physically inside a state where betting is allowed. That data is essential for compliance — but it also creates a detailed record of where and when people use betting apps.
The Iowa case asks a key question: when can police use that data, and do they need a warrant?
If the 8th Circuit revives the lawsuit, it could push law enforcement agencies to seek warrants before using sportsbook location data. If it upholds the immunity ruling, the lower court's finding that the search was unconstitutional still stands, but the investigators won't face damages.
Either way, the case has already changed how the industry thinks about data-sharing. GeoComply's decision to revoke DCI's access showed that technology providers can and will draw lines on how their tools are used.
What happens next
There are three realistic outcomes from the appeal:
- Affirm. The panel upholds qualified immunity, and the case ends unless the athletes seek further review. The district court's finding that the search was unconstitutional would still be on the record, which makes it harder for investigators to claim the law is unclear in future cases.
- Reverse. The panel finds the law was clearly established, sending the case back for the athletes to pursue damages against the investigators.
- Narrow ruling. The court could decide the case on standing, especially for the athletes who used other people's accounts, without settling the broader Fourth Amendment question.
Any of these would give courts, regulators and police more guidance than they have today, because appeals courts have said little about warrantless use of sportsbook geolocation data.
The bigger picture: integrity and privacy
Sports betting integrity is a major concern across the US. Leagues, regulators and sportsbooks have invested heavily in monitoring systems to detect suspicious betting, especially involving athletes and officials. College athletes are banned from betting on sports at their own schools and often on college sports in general under NCAA rules.
At the same time, privacy advocates warn that broad surveillance tools can sweep up innocent users and that constitutional protections shouldn't disappear just because data is held by a private company.
The Iowa case sits at the intersection of these concerns.
What this means for bettors
Your location data is recorded. Every time you open a regulated betting app, your location is checked and logged. Sportsbooks' terms usually allow them to share data with regulators and law enforcement.
Account sharing carries risks. Many Iowa athletes were caught using other people's accounts. Using someone else's account violates sportsbook terms and can lead to legal trouble.
Know the rules. If you're an athlete, coach or official, betting restrictions may apply to you beyond what the law requires. Check your league or association rules.
Compare sportsbooks carefully. Our sportsbooks guide explains how different betting sites handle verification, payments and privacy. You can also read our reviews of BetOnline Sportsbook and SportsBetting.ag.
The 8th Circuit's ruling, whenever it comes, will be closely watched by regulators, sportsbooks and privacy lawyers across the country.