You thought you could control it. That is what everyone thinks at first. You downloaded the app because of a promotion—maybe a risk-free bet, maybe bonus credits, maybe because every commercial break during the game told you this was just part of being a fan now. The first few bets felt harmless, even fun. Then something shifted. You found yourself checking odds during work meetings, placing bets on games you did not care about, chasing losses at three in the morning. When you finally looked at your bank account, the number did not seem real. When your partner asked where the money went, you heard yourself lying without planning to. You told yourself you would stop tomorrow. Tomorrow never came.
When you finally spoke to a mental health professional, they used words like gambling disorder and behavioral addiction. They explained that your brain had been chemically altered, that the dopamine response triggered by these platforms mimics the neurological patterns seen in cocaine addiction. You felt relief and shame in equal measure—relief that this had a name, that you were not simply weak or broken, and shame that you had let it get this far. You wondered how you had missed the signs, why no one had warned you that a sports betting app could do this.
But here is what you were not told: the companies behind these platforms knew exactly what they were building. They studied the psychological mechanisms of addiction, hired behavioral scientists to maximize engagement, and designed every feature of these apps to keep you betting longer and more frequently than you intended. The flashing notifications, the instant deposits, the in-game micro-betting, the loss-chasing promotions—none of it was accidental. It was engineered. And the evidence shows they knew the harm it would cause.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized psychiatric condition in the DSM-5, the diagnostic manual used by mental health professionals. It manifests as a persistent and recessive pattern of gambling behavior that causes significant impairment or distress. People with gambling disorder experience an inability to control or stop gambling despite mounting negative consequences. They chase losses, lie to family members about their gambling, jeopardize relationships and employment, and experience intense anxiety and depression.
The physical symptoms are real. People describe a racing heart when they see a notification about a game starting, sweating and trembling when they try not to bet, insomnia because they are awake monitoring live bets, and a constant state of agitation. The emotional toll is equally devastating. Relationships crumble under the weight of lies and financial stress. People lose their homes, drain their retirement accounts, max out credit cards, and borrow from friends and family. Some contemplate or attempt suicide when the financial destruction becomes overwhelming.
What separates modern sports betting apps from traditional gambling is the speed, access, and psychological manipulation. You can place a bet in three seconds from your couch. You receive dozens of notifications per day encouraging you to bet. You can wager on individual plays within a game, creating a continuous loop of action and reward. The apps track your behavior and send you personalized promotions at moments when you are most vulnerable. They offer bonus bets after you lose, which sounds like generosity but is actually a tactic to keep you engaged when you would otherwise stop. They gamify the experience with leaderboards, achievements, and badges that trigger the same reward pathways as the betting itself.
The result is an addiction that develops faster and penetrates deeper than traditional forms of gambling. Researchers have documented that mobile gambling leads to more severe gambling problems in shorter time periods. The constant accessibility means there is no natural break, no moment when the casino closes and you have to go home. The integration with live sports creates an illusion that skill and knowledge matter, which keeps people betting even as they lose consistently. The apps are designed to make winning feel imminent and losing feel like a fluke that can be corrected with just one more bet.
The Connection
The mechanism by which sports betting apps cause gambling disorder is well-documented in neuroscience and behavioral psychology research. These platforms exploit specific vulnerabilities in human decision-making and brain chemistry.
A 2021 study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors found that the structural characteristics of online gambling—particularly speed of play and event frequency—are directly correlated with the development of gambling problems. The research showed that continuous forms of gambling, where the time between stake and outcome is very short, produce higher rates of addiction than traditional forms. Sports betting apps have engineered this exact environment. In-game betting allows users to place wagers every few minutes throughout a game, creating continuous reinforcement cycles.
The notification systems used by DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM function as external triggers that hijack attention and create urges to bet. A 2020 study in the International Gambling Studies journal documented how push notifications from gambling apps significantly increase gambling frequency and expenditure. The research found that users who received frequent notifications gambled more often and displayed more characteristics of disordered gambling than users who did not receive notifications. The companies know this. They employ behavioral psychologists and data scientists whose job is to optimize notification timing and content to maximize engagement.
The loss-chasing mechanisms built into these platforms are particularly harmful. When users lose money, they immediately receive promotions for bonus bets or risk-free wagers. This is not customer service. It is exploitation of a known cognitive bias called loss aversion, where people take increasingly irrational risks to avoid accepting a loss. A 2019 study published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors found that bonus offers and promotions significantly increase gambling persistence and are associated with more severe gambling problems. The study specifically noted that these promotions are most effective at keeping users engaged immediately after losses, which is exactly when the apps deploy them.
The integration of betting into sports viewing fundamentally changes the neurological experience of watching games. Research published in 2022 in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews documented that gambling activity during sports viewing increases dopamine release and creates associations between sports content and reward anticipation. This means that over time, simply watching a game triggers the urge to bet, even when someone has decided to stop gambling. The apps have effectively conditioned users to experience sports and betting as inseparable activities.
What They Knew And When They Knew It
The sports betting industry knew the addiction risks of mobile gambling before these apps ever launched in the United States. The evidence comes from their own research, their regulatory filings, and their internal communications.
DraftKings and FanDuel both operated daily fantasy sports platforms for years before transitioning to sportsbooks after the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. NCAA legalized state-level sports betting. During those years, both companies faced criticism and regulatory scrutiny over addiction risks. In 2016, the Massachusetts Attorney General investigated DraftKings for deceptive advertising practices, and internal documents from that investigation revealed that the company tracked user behavior that indicated problem gambling but continued to market aggressively to those same users.
When sports betting became legal, these companies had access to decades of research from international markets where mobile sports betting was already established. The United Kingdom, Australia, and several European countries had extensive data on the addiction risks of online gambling. A 2018 report by the UK Gambling Commission, published before most U.S. states legalized sports betting, found that problem gambling rates had increased significantly with the proliferation of mobile gambling apps and that product features like in-game betting and push notifications were associated with higher rates of gambling harm. This information was publicly available. The U.S. companies entering the market knew what the research showed.
Internal documents from BetMGM parent company Entain, obtained through regulatory filings in the UK, show that the company conducted research on user engagement and retention strategies. A 2019 responsible gambling report filed with UK regulators acknowledged that certain product features, including notifications and bonus structures, increased gambling intensity among at-risk users. Despite this knowledge, BetMGM deployed these same features in the U.S. market without adequate safeguards.
In 2020, as sports betting apps were rapidly expanding across U.S. states, industry executives made public statements that reveal their awareness of addiction risks. During a 2020 earnings call, DraftKings executives discussed customer retention strategies and acknowledged that their most valuable customers were those who gambled most frequently. Internal metrics obtained through litigation discovery show that the company tracked users who displayed markers of problem gambling—such as daily gambling, increasing bet sizes after losses, and gambling during late-night hours—and that these users received targeted marketing.
By 2021, the companies had enough data from their own U.S. user base to know exactly how many customers were developing gambling problems. They tracked deposit patterns, loss-chasing behavior, customer service contacts about gambling problems, and self-exclusion requests. They knew the percentage of revenue coming from problem gamblers. Research published in 2022 analyzing data from European gambling operators found that approximately 40 to 60 percent of gambling operator revenue comes from customers showing signs of problem gambling. The U.S. operators had access to similar data from their own platforms but continued to prioritize user acquisition and engagement over harm reduction.
In 2022, DraftKings faced public backlash after sending promotional offers to customers who had self-excluded from the platform due to gambling problems. The company called it a technical error, but the incident revealed that their marketing systems were not designed to prioritize user safety. Later that same year, internal emails obtained through litigation showed that customer service representatives were instructed to process self-exclusion requests but were not trained to identify at-risk users or to proactively offer harm-reduction tools.
How They Kept It Hidden
The sports betting industry has employed a sophisticated strategy to minimize public awareness of addiction risks while maximizing market penetration and user engagement. This strategy involves regulatory lobbying, strategic partnerships with sports leagues and media companies, and carefully crafted responsible gambling messaging that shifts blame to users.
The lobbying efforts began years before legalization. Industry groups spent millions on state-level campaigns to legalize sports betting, and those campaigns emphasized tax revenue and consumer protection while downplaying addiction risks. When states did pass legislation, the industry successfully lobbied for regulations that allowed aggressive marketing, minimal harm-reduction requirements, and voluntary rather than mandatory responsible gambling measures.
The partnerships with professional sports leagues were strategic. By 2021, DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM had become official betting partners of the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. These partnerships normalized sports betting and integrated it into the viewing experience. Broadcasts began including betting lines and odds discussions. Stadiums featured sportsbook lounges. Sports media personalities became betting content creators. This integration made it nearly impossible for consumers to engage with sports without encountering betting promotions, and it created a cultural shift that framed betting as an ordinary part of sports fandom rather than a high-risk activity.
The responsible gambling messaging deployed by these companies is carefully designed to acknowledge addiction risks in a way that absolves the companies of responsibility. The phrase bet responsibly appears in advertising, but it is always brief, quiet, and presented after the exciting promotional content. The companies offer responsible gambling tools like deposit limits and self-exclusion, but these tools are buried in account settings and are not promoted with anything resembling the intensity of betting promotions. Research has shown that voluntary responsible gambling tools are rarely used and are ineffective for people who have already developed gambling problems, yet the industry points to these tools as evidence of their commitment to user safety.
The companies have also funded research through industry-affiliated organizations that produce studies emphasizing personal responsibility and minimizing the role of product design in gambling harm. This is similar to tactics used by tobacco and pharmaceutical companies in previous decades. By funding research that supports their interests, they create a body of literature that appears to show balanced debate on issues where the independent research actually shows clear evidence of harm.
Media strategies have been equally important. The companies spend billions on advertising, which creates economic relationships with media outlets that depend on that advertising revenue. This makes media outlets less likely to publish critical investigative reporting on gambling addiction. Sports media personalities who have become betting content creators have financial incentives not to discuss the harms associated with the platforms they promote. This creates an information environment where the risks of sports betting are systematically underrepresented.
Why Your Doctor Did Not Tell You
Most physicians and mental health professionals were not trained to identify or treat gambling disorder, and they received almost no information about the specific risks of mobile sports betting apps. Medical education has historically treated gambling disorder as a rare condition, and until the proliferation of online gambling, that assessment was relatively accurate. The rapid expansion of mobile sports betting has outpaced medical education and clinical awareness.
When sports betting was legalized state by state beginning in 2018, there was no coordinated effort to educate healthcare providers about the addiction risks. The companies launching these apps did not send risk information to physicians the way pharmaceutical companies are required to provide prescribing information about medications. There was no FDA-equivalent regulatory body requiring patient information sheets or warning labels. From a physician perspective, sports betting appeared as consumer entertainment, not a medical issue.
The normalization of sports betting through partnerships with professional sports leagues and integration into sports broadcasting also affected clinical perception. When physicians saw betting odds discussed on ESPN and saw stadium advertising for sportsbooks, it created an impression that this was a mainstream, regulated, low-risk activity. They had no way of knowing about the internal research showing addiction risks or the behavioral design tactics being used to maximize engagement.
Mental health professionals who do treat gambling disorder have reported that patients often do not disclose their gambling problems initially, and that mobile sports betting in particular carries less stigma than casino gambling, which can delay recognition of the problem. A patient might mention financial stress or relationship conflict without connecting it to their betting behavior, especially if they conceptualize their betting as sports fandom rather than gambling.
There has also been no systematic screening for gambling disorder in healthcare settings. Unlike alcohol use, which is routinely screened during medical appointments, gambling behavior is rarely assessed. This means that many cases go unidentified until the consequences become severe enough to be undeniable. By that point, the financial and relational damage is often catastrophic.
The lack of physician awareness is not an accident. It is the result of an industry that entered the market without adequate regulatory oversight, without requirements to provide risk information to healthcare providers or the public, and without investment in education or harm reduction infrastructure. The companies prioritized rapid market expansion and user acquisition, and the medical community was left to identify and respond to the resulting harms without preparation or resources.
Who Is Affected
If you are wondering whether your experience qualifies, here is what the legal teams investigating these cases are looking for. These are not formal legal criteria, but rather the patterns of experience that connect to the documented harms.
You used one or more of the major sports betting apps: DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM. You opened an account after 2018, when mobile sports betting became legal in U.S. states. You were targeted with promotional offers, bonus bets, risk-free bet offers, or referral incentives. You received notifications from the app encouraging you to place bets. You used in-game or live betting features that allowed you to place wagers during games.
Over time, your gambling behavior changed. You began betting more frequently than you initially intended. You increased the amounts you were betting. You found yourself thinking about betting when you were not gambling, planning your next bets, checking odds throughout the day. You experienced a need to bet with increasing amounts of money to achieve the excitement you were seeking. You became restless or irritable when you tried to cut down or stop gambling.
You chased losses, meaning you returned to the app after losing money to try to win it back. You lied to family members, friends, or therapists about the extent of your gambling. You jeopardized or lost a significant relationship, job, or educational opportunity because of gambling. You relied on others to provide money to relieve desperate financial situations caused by gambling.
You experienced financial harm. This might look like drained savings accounts, maxed-out credit cards, borrowed money from friends or family, pawned possessions, depleted retirement accounts, or unpaid bills. The financial losses were significant relative to your income and assets. You experienced shame, anxiety, depression, or suicidal thoughts related to your gambling losses.
You tried to stop and could not, or you stopped only after the financial damage was already severe. You may have used the app self-exclusion feature or sought help from a mental health professional. You may have been diagnosed with gambling disorder by a healthcare provider.
The timeline matters. The cases being investigated involve people who developed gambling disorder after using these mobile sports betting apps. The focus is on the period from 2018 forward, after sports betting was legalized and these apps became widely available. The connection being examined is whether the design of these platforms—the notifications, the promotions, the in-game betting, the behavioral targeting—caused or substantially contributed to the development of your gambling disorder.
If this sounds like your experience, you are not alone. Tens of thousands of people have had similar trajectories. The pattern is consistent because the platforms were designed to produce this pattern. Your individual circumstances matter—how much you lost, what the consequences were, what your relationship with gambling was before these apps existed—but the core experience of escalating use, loss of control, and devastating consequences is what connects these cases.
Where Things Stand
The legal landscape around sports betting addiction is developing rapidly. As of 2024, multiple law firms are investigating potential claims against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM. These investigations are examining whether the companies can be held liable for failing to warn users about addiction risks, for designing products in ways that maximize addictive potential, and for targeting marketing to users who showed signs of problem gambling.
The legal theories being pursued include negligence, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and violations of consumer protection statutes. The negligence claims argue that the companies had a duty to design reasonably safe products and to warn users of known risks, and that they breached that duty. The fraud and deceptive practices claims focus on the gap between the companies public responsible gambling messaging and their internal practices of maximizing engagement and revenue from at-risk users.
There is also investigation into whether the companies violated state gambling regulations that require operators to implement responsible gambling measures. Several states have laws requiring operators to identify and intervene with problem gamblers, and evidence suggests the companies prioritized revenue over compliance with these requirements.
Some cases are being prepared as individual lawsuits, while others are being structured as potential class actions. The class action approach would involve a group of plaintiffs with similar experiences filing together, which can be more efficient than individual cases but requires demonstrating that the group members experienced common harms from common practices.
No major settlements or verdicts have been reached yet, in part because these cases are complex and in part because the industry is relatively new. The companies have significant legal resources and will defend these cases aggressively. They will argue that gambling is a personal choice, that they provided responsible gambling tools, and that they complied with state regulations. The plaintiffs will need to prove that the companies knew their products caused harm and that they failed to adequately warn users or implement appropriate safeguards.
The timeline for these cases will likely span several years. Product liability and consumer protection cases are rarely resolved quickly. Discovery—the process of obtaining internal documents and communications from the companies—will be critical and contentious. The companies will resist disclosing information about their design processes, their internal research on user behavior, and their marketing strategies. Depositions of company executives and employees will provide insight into what the companies knew and when they knew it.
Similar cases in other industries provide some guidance. The opioid litigation, which involved pharmaceutical companies and distributors, resulted in tens of billions of dollars in settlements after years of litigation. Those cases succeeded in part because internal documents showed that the companies knew their products were causing addiction and overdose deaths but continued to market them aggressively. The sports betting cases will hinge on whether similar evidence exists showing that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM knew their platforms were causing gambling disorder but prioritized growth and profit over user safety.
Regulatory developments may also affect the legal landscape. Some states are beginning to impose stricter regulations on sports betting advertising and responsible gambling requirements. The federal government has discussed but not implemented national standards. Increased regulation could provide additional legal grounds for claims if companies are found to have violated those standards.
International precedents are relevant as well. In Australia and the United Kingdom, gambling operators have faced significant legal and regulatory consequences for failures in responsible gambling. Those cases have established that operators can be held liable when they fail to identify and protect problem gamblers. U.S. courts may look to those precedents when evaluating claims against U.S. sports betting companies.
What Really Happened
What happened to you was not a failure of willpower. It was not a character flaw. It was not bad luck or poor decision-making. It was the result of a calculated business strategy executed by companies that understood the neuroscience of addiction and built products designed to exploit it.
The evidence shows that DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM had access to decades of research on gambling addiction. They knew that mobile gambling is more addictive than traditional gambling. They knew that continuous betting opportunities, push notifications, and loss-chasing promotions increase addiction risk. They knew that in-game betting and the integration of gambling into sports viewing would create psychological associations that make it nearly impossible for users to engage with sports without experiencing urges to bet. They had this knowledge, and they built their products and marketing strategies around maximizing engagement anyway. They prioritized market share and revenue over user safety. That was a business decision, and it had predictable consequences.
The people who developed gambling disorder from these apps are not outliers. They are the foreseeable result of the product design choices these companies made. The financial devastation, the broken relationships, the shame and despair—all of it was predictable based on existing research. The companies knew it would happen to some percentage of their users, and they decided that was an acceptable cost of doing business. You became one of those statistics not because of something wrong with you, but because you were exposed to a product designed to be addictive. What happened to you was not your fault. It was the documented result of decisions made in boardrooms by executives who knew exactly what they were building.