You told yourself it was entertainment. A way to make the games more exciting. Maybe you won a little at first, and that felt good—like you had a talent for it, an edge. Then somewhere along the way, the bets got bigger. You started chasing losses. You began betting on games you did not even care about, sports you had never watched before, just to feel something or to try to break even. You borrowed money. You lied to people you love. You felt a physical compulsion to open the app that you could not explain to anyone, least of all yourself.
When you finally admitted something was wrong—maybe after a financial crisis, maybe after your spouse found out, maybe after you realized you were planning your days around betting windows—you might have wondered how this happened to you. You are not reckless. You do not have an addictive personality. You never had a problem with gambling before these apps came along. And yet here you are, with a diagnosis of gambling disorder, a term that sounds clinical and distant but describes the total upheaval of your emotional, financial, and relational life.
What you may not know is that you are not alone in asking these questions. Thousands of people who never set foot in a casino, who never bought a lottery ticket compulsively, who had no history of addiction, developed severe gambling disorder after downloading a sports betting app between 2018 and 2024. And according to lawsuits now working their way through courts across the country, that may not have been an accident.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is what clinicians call it, but people living with it describe something much more visceral. It is waking up at 3 a.m. with your heart pounding, opening the app before your eyes have adjusted to the light. It is the inability to watch a game without money on it. It is lying to your partner about where the money went, opening new credit cards in secret, taking out loans you know you cannot repay. It is the crushing shame that comes in waves, followed by the thought that one more bet, one good win, will fix everything.
The diagnostic criteria include things like needing to bet increasing amounts to feel excitement, repeated unsuccessful efforts to stop, lying to conceal the extent of gambling, and jeopardizing relationships or employment because of gambling. But those clinical terms do not capture what it feels like to lose control of your own decision-making, to feel trapped in a cycle you cannot break, to watch your life fall apart while some part of your brain keeps insisting the next bet will be different.
People describe physical symptoms: the rush of placing a bet, the anxiety between placing it and seeing the result, the crash afterward. Some report dissociative states where hours pass without awareness. Many describe intrusive thoughts about betting that interfere with work, family time, and sleep. The financial devastation is often total: emptied savings, maxed credit cards, borrowed money from family, sometimes embezzlement or theft. Relationships collapse under the weight of broken trust. Some people lose their jobs. According to research on gambling disorder, approximately 23 percent of people with the condition attempt suicide, a rate higher than any other addictive disorder.
What distinguishes app-based sports betting addiction from traditional gambling disorder is the speed, accessibility, and integration into daily life. You do not have to travel anywhere. You do not have to be around other people. You can bet from your couch, your office, your car, your bed. The apps are designed to be opened dozens of times per day. Notifications arrive constantly. The friction that once existed between impulse and action—the drive to a casino, the need to be in a specific location at a specific time—has been eliminated entirely.
The Connection
Sports betting apps changed the neurological and behavioral landscape of gambling in several specific ways, and research into behavioral psychology and addiction science explains how these design features create and deepen addiction pathways in the brain.
First, there is the issue of speed and frequency. Traditional sports betting required you to place a wager before an event started and wait hours for the result. Mobile sports betting apps introduced in-play or live betting, which allows users to place bets on dozens of micro-events within a single game: the next play, the next pitch, the next possession. A study published in the International Gambling Studies journal in 2020 found that in-play betting is associated with significantly higher rates of gambling problems compared to pre-game betting, in part because it dramatically increases the number of gambling events per hour and reduces the time for reflective decision-making.
The psychological principle at work is called variable ratio reinforcement, the most addiction-forming reward schedule known to behavioral science. It is the same mechanism that makes slot machines so addictive: unpredictable rewards delivered at varying intervals. Sports betting apps deliver this on a scale previously impossible. You can place fifty bets during a single football game. Each one triggers a dopamine response in the anticipation phase, and the unpredictability of wins and losses strengthens the compulsion to continue.
Second, there is accessibility. A study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions in 2021 examined the relationship between smartphone-based gambling and addiction severity. Researchers found that the ability to gamble anywhere, at any time, without social observation, was directly correlated with loss of control and financial harm. The study noted that mobile gambling removes environmental cues that might otherwise prompt someone to stop: the physical act of running out of cash, the closing time of a casino, the social presence of other people.
Third, the apps use sophisticated personalization and push notifications. Behavioral data is collected on every interaction: what sports you bet on, what times of day you are most active, what bet types you prefer, when you are most likely to deposit more money. This data is used to send notifications designed to re-engage you precisely when you are most vulnerable to the impulse. A 2022 study published in Addictive Behaviors found that push notifications from gambling apps were a significant predictor of disordered gambling behavior, particularly among people who had previously shown signs of impulsivity or loss-chasing.
Fourth, there is the illusion of skill and control. Sports betting is marketed as a game of knowledge and strategy, different from chance-based gambling like slots or roulette. The apps provide extensive statistics, expert picks, and analytical tools that reinforce the belief that with enough research and insight, you can win consistently. This belief is false—the house edge ensures long-term losses for the vast majority of users—but it is psychologically powerful. A 2019 study in the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors journal found that perceived skill in gambling is one of the strongest cognitive distortions associated with gambling disorder, and that sports betting in particular exploits this distortion.
Finally, there is the integration of social features and gamification. Many apps include leaderboards, achievement badges, bonus rewards for streaks of activity, and social sharing features. These design elements are borrowed from video game design and social media, industries that have spent billions optimizing for user engagement and compulsive use. They make the app feel less like gambling and more like entertainment or even productivity. But the outcome is the same: increased frequency of use, longer sessions, and higher total money wagered.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Multiple lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM between 2023 and 2024 allege that these companies were aware of the addiction risks posed by their app design features and made deliberate choices to prioritize engagement and revenue over user safety.
According to a complaint filed in Massachusetts federal court in November 2023, DraftKings employed behavioral psychologists and data scientists specifically to optimize app features for maximum user engagement, which the lawsuit alleges is a euphemism for maximizing addictive behavior. The complaint cites internal communications and product development documents that allegedly show the company tested various notification frequencies, reward structures, and in-app messaging strategies to determine which combinations resulted in the highest lifetime value per user—a metric that, in the gambling context, correlates directly with total money lost.
The lawsuit alleges that DraftKings was aware as early as 2019 that a significant percentage of its revenue came from users exhibiting signs of problem gambling, including frequent loss-chasing, borrowing to fund deposits, and self-reported financial distress in customer service interactions. The complaint claims that rather than implementing protective measures, the company increased marketing spend targeted at these high-value users.
A separate lawsuit filed against FanDuel in New York federal court in January 2024 alleges that the company conducted internal research in 2020 examining the relationship between push notification frequency and gambling disorder symptoms. According to the complaint, this research allegedly found that users who received more than ten notifications per day were significantly more likely to exceed self-set deposit limits, display loss-chasing behavior, and score positively on problem gambling screening tools embedded in the app. The lawsuit alleges that despite these findings, FanDuel increased rather than decreased notification frequency for high-engagement users, and did not disclose the addiction risks associated with frequent notifications in its terms of service or responsible gambling materials.
Court filings in a class action lawsuit filed against BetMGM in New Jersey in March 2024 allege that the company was aware of research showing that in-play betting carries substantially higher addiction risk than traditional pre-game betting. The complaint references a 2021 presentation allegedly delivered to BetMGM executives that discussed the profitability of live betting features and noted that users who engage in live betting have higher churn rates and higher rates of account closure due to financial distress, which the presentation allegedly identified as indicators of problem gambling. The lawsuit claims that the company responded by developing more aggressive re-engagement campaigns targeting users who had reduced their activity, rather than implementing cooling-off periods or enhanced warnings for high-risk betting patterns.
Several lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions allege that all three major operators were aware of data showing that a disproportionate share of revenue—in some cases alleged to be 40 to 70 percent—came from a small percentage of users who displayed behaviors consistent with gambling disorder. These allegations are based on industry reports, academic studies of gambling operator data, and documents disclosed in regulatory proceedings. The complaints allege that this revenue concentration is a known characteristic of addictive products and that the companies structured their marketing, retention, and product development strategies around retaining and extracting maximum value from these high-risk users.
A lawsuit filed in Illinois in August 2024 alleges that DraftKings and FanDuel both lobbied state legislatures between 2018 and 2023 to minimize responsible gambling requirements, delay the implementation of mandatory self-exclusion databases, and resist restrictions on advertising volume and targeting. The complaint cites lobbying disclosures and legislative testimony in which company representatives allegedly argued that market-based solutions and voluntary responsible gambling tools were sufficient, despite internal data—referenced in the complaint—that allegedly showed low adoption rates of these voluntary tools and high rates of continued gambling among users who had self-identified as having a problem.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
Beyond allegations of knowing the risks, several lawsuits allege that sports betting companies actively concealed the extent of addiction risks from users, regulators, and the public.
According to complaints filed in multiple states, DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM marketed their platforms as entertainment and skill-based games rather than as gambling products carrying significant addiction risk. The lawsuits allege that advertising campaigns emphasized winning, success, and the analytical nature of sports betting, while minimizing or omitting entirely the risks of financial loss and addiction. Plaintiffs point to the tone and content of advertising—celebrity endorsements, integration with sports media, promotional offers framed as bonuses rather than inducements to risk money—as evidence of a deliberate strategy to obscure the nature and risks of the product.
A complaint filed in Pennsylvania in July 2024 alleges that responsible gambling tools offered by these platforms were designed to appear protective while remaining largely ineffective. The lawsuit claims that deposit limits could be easily increased or removed, cooling-off periods were not enforced consistently, and self-exclusion processes were difficult to navigate and in some cases reversible. The complaint alleges that customer service representatives were trained to encourage users to stay active and were incentivized based on user retention metrics, which created conflicts of interest when users contacted the company seeking help with gambling problems.
Several lawsuits allege that sports betting companies funded research and advocacy groups that promoted messages minimizing the addiction risks of mobile sports betting. According to a complaint filed in Maryland in September 2024, industry groups and companies provided financial support to organizations that testified before state legislatures and regulatory agencies, advocating for minimal restrictions on advertising, product features, and user protections. The complaint alleges that these financial relationships were not always disclosed and that the research funded by the industry was selectively cited to support regulatory positions favorable to the companies, while independent research showing higher addiction rates was ignored or disputed.
Court filings also allege that when users did develop gambling problems and sought recourse, companies used settlement agreements with non-disclosure provisions to prevent information about addiction patterns and company practices from becoming public. A lawsuit filed in Nevada in October 2024 alleges that BetMGM settled multiple complaints from users who claimed the platform had failed to honor self-exclusion requests or had continued to send marketing materials to users enrolled in responsible gambling programs, and that these settlements included confidentiality clauses that prevented the plaintiffs from discussing the terms or the factual basis of their claims.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
If you went to your primary care doctor in 2022 and mentioned you had started using sports betting apps, it is unlikely you received any warning about addiction risk. That is not because your doctor did not care. It is because the medical community was—and in many cases still is—years behind the rapid expansion of mobile gambling and the research showing its harms.
Gambling disorder has been recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 2013, when it was reclassified from an impulse control disorder to an addictive disorder, on par with substance use disorders. But medical school curricula, continuing education programs, and clinical screening protocols have been slow to integrate this understanding. Most primary care physicians receive little to no training in recognizing or treating gambling disorder. There is no standard screening tool used in routine physical exams the way there is for depression or alcohol use.
The lawsuits allege that this gap in medical awareness was not accidental. According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions, the sports betting industry worked to frame mobile gambling as entertainment rather than a public health issue, which delayed the integration of gambling disorder screening into medical practice. Industry-funded messaging emphasized personal responsibility and voluntary tools, rather than systemic risk factors and the addictive properties of the products themselves.
In the specific context of sports betting apps, the speed of market expansion outpaced public health response. Between 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting, and 2023, mobile sports betting became legal in more than thirty states. Tens of millions of people who had never gambled regularly suddenly had access to highly sophisticated, behaviorally optimized gambling platforms. Public health agencies, medical associations, and regulatory bodies struggled to keep pace.
Additionally, the lawsuits allege that sports betting companies did not provide adequate risk information to healthcare providers. Unlike pharmaceutical companies, which are required to distribute prescribing information and safety data to physicians, gambling operators had no such obligation. There was no systematic effort to educate doctors about the signs of app-based gambling disorder, the populations at highest risk, or the mechanisms by which these platforms create addiction.
The result is that many people suffering from gambling disorder went undiagnosed for months or years. They may have sought treatment for anxiety, depression, insomnia, or financial stress without disclosing their gambling, either because they did not recognize it as the root cause or because they felt too ashamed. And even when they did disclose it, many doctors lacked the training to provide appropriate referrals or interventions.
Who Is Affected
If you are reading this and recognizing your own experience, you are likely wondering whether what happened to you fits the pattern described in these lawsuits.
The people most affected by app-based sports betting addiction share certain characteristics. Many had no history of gambling problems before downloading a betting app. They were introduced to sports betting through advertising during live sports broadcasts, through promotional offers, or through social circles where betting became a normalized part of watching games. They started casually, often with a deposit bonus or risk-free bet promotion, and initially kept their activity within recreational bounds.
The shift into disordered gambling often happened gradually, then suddenly. It might have started with chasing a loss, or with the discovery of live in-game betting, which allowed for continuous action. Many people describe a period where they won enough to believe they had skill, which reinforced continued play. Then the losses mounted. They deposited more to try to win it back. They began hiding the activity from family. They started betting on sports they knew nothing about, or on events they had no interest in, purely for the action.
Financial markers include depleted savings, maxed credit cards, personal loans, borrowing from family or friends under false pretenses, and in some cases theft or embezzlement. Behavioral markers include lying about whereabouts or spending, neglecting work or family responsibilities, irritability when unable to bet, and repeated failed attempts to cut back or stop. Emotional markers include shame, anxiety, depression, and in some cases suicidal thoughts.
The lawsuits describe plaintiffs from a wide range of backgrounds: young men in their twenties who grew up with smartphones and targeted advertising, middle-aged professionals who had disposable income and a love of sports, retirees who were isolated and found the apps engaging. What unites them is not demographics, but the experience of losing control in a way that felt both alien and overwhelming, and the discovery that the thing marketed as harmless entertainment had rewritten their brain chemistry and destroyed their financial stability.
If you used DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM between 2018 and 2024, and you experienced financial harm, relationship damage, employment consequences, or mental health decline that you now understand to be connected to gambling disorder, you are part of the population these lawsuits describe.
Where Things Stand
As of late 2024, more than two dozen lawsuits have been filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM in state and federal courts across the country. These include individual personal injury claims, putative class actions, and claims brought on behalf of family members who lost someone to suicide connected to gambling disorder.
The cases are in early stages. Some have survived motions to dismiss, meaning judges have found that the allegations, if proven, could support legal liability. Others are in discovery, the phase where plaintiffs can request internal documents, communications, and data from the companies. No cases have yet gone to trial, and no settlements have been publicly announced, though some lawsuits allege that prior settlements with confidentiality provisions have occurred.
The legal theories vary by jurisdiction but generally include claims of negligence, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Some complaints argue that the companies failed to warn users of known risks. Others argue that the apps were defectively designed, incorporating features known to cause addiction without adequate safeguards. Still others focus on allegations of fraudulent concealment, arguing that the companies possessed material information about addiction risks and deliberately withheld it from users and regulators.
In addition to civil litigation, there has been growing regulatory and legislative attention. Several state attorneys general have opened investigations into marketing practices, responsible gambling tool effectiveness, and the targeting of vulnerable populations. Congressional hearings have examined the public health impact of mobile sports betting, and some lawmakers have proposed federal legislation that would impose baseline consumer protections and responsible gambling requirements.
For individuals considering whether to pursue legal action, the timeline remains uncertain. Complex litigation of this kind typically takes years to resolve. But the volume of cases being filed, the severity of harms being alleged, and the growing body of research connecting app design to addiction outcomes suggest that this will be an area of active legal development for the foreseeable future.
What This Means
If you developed a gambling disorder after downloading a sports betting app, 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 in the traditional sense. According to the lawsuits now moving through the courts, it was the foreseeable result of product design choices made by companies that had access to research showing the addiction potential of their platforms and chose profit over safety.
You were not warned that in-play betting triggers the same neural pathways as slot machines. You were not told that push notifications are calibrated to reach you when you are most vulnerable to impulsive decisions. You were not informed that the majority of revenue in this industry comes from a small fraction of users who have lost control. You were given promotional offers, celebrity endorsements, and integration into the sports media you trusted, all of which conveyed the message that this was harmless fun.
The science shows otherwise. The court documents allege the companies knew otherwise. And thousands of people like you are now living with the consequences: financial ruin, broken relationships, mental health crises, and the crushing weight of shame that comes from an addiction that society still does not fully understand or recognize.
What happened to you was not your fault. It was a documented business decision, alleged in lawsuit after lawsuit, to build and optimize a product that would keep you engaged regardless of the cost to your life. You deserved to know the risks. You deserved protective features that actually worked. You deserved honesty. And now, you deserve to understand that you are not alone, that what you experienced has a name, and that the companies responsible are finally being held to account.