Who the Filed Cases Involve
The lawsuits filed to date involve adults who say they developed gambling disorder after using mobile sports betting apps, primarily DraftKings and FanDuel.[3][5][8][9] The complaints describe people who placed bets through these apps and allege they suffered gambling addiction and large financial losses as a result.[5][9] No court has set eligibility criteria for who may join these cases. There is no settlement fund and no claims process.
What Gambling Disorder Is
Gambling disorder is a recognized diagnosis in the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, where it sits in the chapter on Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders. It is the only non-substance addictive disorder endorsed as a diagnosis in the DSM-5. A diagnosis requires persistent and recurrent problematic gambling leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, shown by at least 4 of 9 listed criteria within a 12-month period. A diagnosis existing is not a court finding that any product caused it.[1]
What the Filed Cases Have in Common
The cases share several themes. All target online sports betting platforms that became widely available after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on state-authorized sports betting in May 2018.[2] The lawsuits allege the companies used data, algorithms, and targeted promotions to identify and exploit customers showing signs of problem gambling.[3][5][9] Some complaints focus on bonus bets, VIP programs, and push notifications.[3][6][9] The Philadelphia lawsuit filed in March 2026 centers on in-game microbetting and alleges the apps were engineered to maximize gambling addiction through AI-driven targeting.[9] According to the filings as reported, one plaintiff in that case placed about $23 million in NFL microbets and lost nearly $1.9 million, and another lost more than $170,000.[11]
The City of Baltimore sued DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of FanDuel, alleging the companies use misleading promotions to attract bettors and then use data and analytics to keep problem gamblers betting, in violation of the city's Consumer Protection Ordinance. The city seeks statutory penalties and a court order requiring the companies to stop targeting people with gambling disorders.[3] FanDuel said it does not comment on pending litigation and that it is confident it operates in accordance with all laws, including those enforced by Maryland's Lottery and Gaming Control Commission. DraftKings did not provide a statement.[3]
Five Pennsylvania residents filed a proposed class action against DraftKings and other online gambling operators alleging the company used algorithms to identify customers with potential gambling problems and then exploited them, resulting in gambling addiction and large financial and personal losses.[5] Two Massachusetts lawsuits were amended to add claims under the state consumer protection law, alleging the companies marketed to users whose behavior showed signs of problem gambling using promotions, credits, and VIP managers. The amended complaints seek double or treble damages.[6] These are all allegations. No court has ruled on the merits.
Where the Cases Stand
There is no coordinated proceeding, no multidistrict litigation, and no single judge overseeing these cases. They are proceeding separately in state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Massachusetts, and California.[3][4][5][7][8][9][12] The cases are in early stages, with motions to dismiss, arbitration requests, and one appeal pending. The record we track does not show any trial date set.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed DraftKings from the class action alleging its marketing and VIP programs caused bettors to develop gambling addictions. The judge concluded that Pennsylvania law likely does not impose a duty on online casinos and sportsbooks to monitor or police customers' betting habits, so the negligence claims failed on the duty element.[7] The plaintiffs filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking it to restore their claims.[5]
A federal court in Northern California dismissed RICO claims brought against DraftKings by gamblers seeking to recover their losses, ruling that public policy against recovering gambling losses bars those claims.[12]
A federal judge allowed a class action against DraftKings over its No Risk and No Sweat bet promotions to move forward, rejecting DraftKings' motion to dismiss and ruling that the claims plausibly allege deceptive marketing. This case concerns how promotions were advertised. It is not a ruling that the app causes addiction.[6]
Practical Hurdles the Record Shows
Arbitration clauses present a significant practical hurdle. A federal judge sent a plaintiff's lawsuit against FanDuel, which accused the company of worsening his gambling problem, to arbitration.[10] In the Philadelphia case, FanDuel asked to move the case to arbitration under its terms of service.[11] Arbitration is a private process outside the court system where a neutral decision-maker hears both sides and issues a binding decision. When a company's terms of service include an arbitration clause and a court enforces it, the customer generally cannot proceed in court and must arbitrate the dispute individually.
Defendants have also argued that state product liability and consumer protection law does not apply to free mobile apps and that state gaming regulators have authority over how sportsbooks are regulated.[11] DraftKings argued in the Philadelphia case that the claims are time-barred.[11] The NFL and Genius Sports, also named in that case, filed motions arguing they should not be part of the case.[11]
The defendants removed Baltimore's lawsuit from state court to the U.S. District Court in Maryland on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Baltimore said it would ask for the case to be sent back to the Circuit Court.[4] The record we track does not show the outcome of that request.
What Is Not Known Yet
The record we track does not show a verified count of how many lawsuits have been filed. We track individual named cases, not a consolidated docket.
It has been reported but not verified from the docket whether Baltimore's lawsuit was sent back to state court or stayed in federal court, and its current status.[4]
It has been reported but not verified from the dockets whether the Philadelphia court has ruled on the motions to dismiss and the arbitration request in the Sage and Thompson case, and the status of the Third Circuit appeal.[11]
The record does not show any settlement discussions, any discovery rulings, or any trial date.
Records to Gather and Questions to Ask
If your family is considering speaking with a lawyer, you may find it helpful to gather the following records:
- Account statements or transaction histories from the betting app showing dates, amounts wagered, and losses
- Medical records or diagnoses related to gambling disorder or mental health treatment
- Records of communications with the betting company, including promotional messages, emails, or notifications
- A copy of the terms of service or user agreement you accepted when you opened the account
- Financial records showing the impact of gambling losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, or loan documents
- Any correspondence with customer service or responsible gaming departments
Questions to ask any lawyer you speak with:
- Have you reviewed the terms of service for the app I used, and do they include an arbitration clause that would prevent me from going to court?
- What is your experience with gambling addiction cases or product liability cases, and what have the outcomes been?
- What are the legal theories you would pursue on my behalf, and how have courts in my state ruled on similar claims?
- What are the time limits for filing a case in my state, and am I still within them?
- What criteria does your firm use to decide whether to take a case, and do I meet them?
- What costs or fees would I be responsible for, and when would I pay them?
- What is the realistic range of outcomes for a case like mine, based on the rulings so far?
- Are you aware of any pending appeals or legal developments that could affect my case?
Law firms set their own criteria for the cases they accept. Those criteria are not court rulings and do not determine legal eligibility. For more on what the lawsuits allege, see our page on what the lawsuits allege. For the medical picture, see our page on the medical picture. For a chronological account, see our page on timeline and current status.
Sources
- DSM-5 (2013) (2013-05-01). Secondary report: psychdb.com
- Murphy v. NCAA, No. 16-476 (2018-05-01). Secondary report: lawsuittracker.org
- Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment (2025-04-03). Secondary report: global.espn.com
- Baltimore v. DraftKings (2025-05-07). Secondary report: foxbaltimore.com
- Macek et al. v. DraftKings (2025-07-01). Secondary report: aboutlawsuits.com
- DraftKings promotions class action (2025-12-01). Secondary report: aboutlawsuits.com
- Macek et al. v. DraftKings (2026-03-01). Secondary report: playusa.com
- Massachusetts state court action (2026-03-15). Secondary report: wallacemiller.com
- Sage and Thompson v. DraftKings et al. (2026-03-24). Secondary report: bettorsinsider.com
- Arbitration ruling, FanDuel (2026-05-01). Secondary report: sportico.com
- Sage and Thompson v. DraftKings et al. (2026-07-15). Secondary report: torhoermanlaw.com
- RICO action, N.D. Cal. (2026-08-01). Secondary report: playusa.com
Litigation facts on this page come from the TortIntel litigation record and the documents linked above. Last checked against that record on 2026-09-20. If you see an error, tell us and we will correct it.