You told yourself it was just for fun. A few dollars on the Sunday games, maybe a parlay during March Madness. The app made it so easy—bright colors, instant action, a notification whenever your team scored. Then somewhere along the way, something shifted. You started betting on sports you had never watched before. Tennis matches in countries you could not find on a map. You found yourself checking odds at work, during dinner, in the middle of the night. The losses piled up, and you kept telling yourself the next bet would make it right. By the time you realized something was deeply wrong, you had burned through savings, maxed out credit cards, and lied to everyone you loved about where the money went.
When you finally sat down with a counselor or therapist, they used a term you had heard before but never connected to yourself: gambling disorder. It sounded clinical, distant, like something that happened to other people in casinos wearing rumpled suits. But as they walked you through the diagnostic criteria—the inability to stop despite mounting losses, the preoccupation with gambling, the lying and hiding, the desperate attempts to chase losses—you recognized yourself in every single symptom. The professional across from you explained that this was not a moral failing. It was a behavioral addiction with neurological components, one that could devastate lives as thoroughly as any substance use disorder.
What nobody told you, during all those months of colorful promotions and risk-free bet offers, was that the platform you were using had been engineered with precision to keep you engaged. That the features you thought were just convenient—the in-game betting, the push notifications, the ability to place hundreds of bets per day from your phone—had been designed using behavioral psychology research to maximize your time and money on the platform. And what the lawsuits now making their way through courts across the country allege is that the companies behind these apps knew exactly what they were building, knew the addiction risks, and chose growth over guardrails.
What Happened
Gambling disorder is a recognized psychiatric condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It shares neurological features with substance addictions, affecting the same reward pathways in the brain. People with gambling disorder experience an inability to control their gambling behavior despite serious negative consequences. They think about gambling constantly, need to bet increasing amounts to achieve the same excitement, become restless or irritable when trying to cut back, and repeatedly try to stop or reduce gambling without success.
The financial devastation can be staggering. People drain retirement accounts, take out loans they cannot repay, steal from employers or family members, and face bankruptcy. The average debt for someone in treatment for gambling disorder often exceeds one hundred thousand dollars. But the damage extends far beyond finances. Relationships disintegrate under the weight of lies and broken trust. Jobs are lost due to distraction and poor performance. Mental health spirals as shame, anxiety, and depression take hold. Suicide rates among people with severe gambling disorder are among the highest of any psychiatric condition.
What makes mobile sports betting particularly dangerous is the speed and accessibility. Unlike driving to a casino, which creates natural breaks and barriers, a betting app is always in your pocket. You can place a bet in seconds, during any moment of boredom or stress. Many platforms allow in-game betting, where you can wager on individual plays or moments during a sporting event—creating dozens or even hundreds of betting opportunities during a single game. The constant action, the illusion of control, and the near-miss experiences are all elements that research has shown can accelerate the development of gambling problems.
The Connection
Mobile sports betting apps did not invent gambling addiction, but research suggests they dramatically accelerated its development in vulnerable users. The connection lies in how these platforms were designed and what they made possible.
First, there is the issue of speed and frequency. Research published in the journal Addiction in 2020 found that continuous forms of gambling—where the time between stake and outcome is very short—are associated with significantly higher rates of gambling problems. Mobile betting apps allow users to place bets continuously throughout a sporting event, with outcomes resolved in seconds or minutes. Some users report placing more than fifty bets during a single football game. This rapid cycle of betting, outcome, and rebetting mirrors the mechanism of slot machines, which researchers have long identified as one of the most addictive forms of gambling.
Second, the research on variable reward schedules—the psychological principle that rewards delivered unpredictably are more compelling than predictable rewards—has been understood since the mid-twentieth century. A study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2019 found that sports betting apps deliberately incorporated features that exploit this principle, including live betting with constantly changing odds, promotional bonuses with complex terms, and gamification elements like leaderboards and achievement badges. These design choices are not accidental aesthetic preferences. They are applications of behavioral psychology research aimed at increasing user engagement.
Third, there is the removal of natural barriers. A 2021 study in the International Gambling Studies journal documented how mobile gambling eliminates traditional friction points that historically provided opportunities for self-reflection and cooling off. There is no travel time, no need to obtain cash, no public visibility, no closing time. The app is available twenty-four hours a day, in private, with instant deposits from linked bank accounts. For individuals with impulse control vulnerabilities—whether due to genetics, prior trauma, co-occurring mental health conditions, or other factors—these removed barriers can be catastrophic.
Research has also established that certain populations are more vulnerable. Young men, particularly those aged twenty-one to thirty-five, show higher rates of sports betting disorder. People with ADHD, depression, anxiety disorders, or substance use histories face elevated risk. Military veterans are disproportionately affected. None of these vulnerabilities are visible to the user downloading an app after seeing a television commercial promising excitement and easy wins.
What The Lawsuits Allege They Knew
Lawsuits filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM allege that these companies were aware of gambling addiction risks long before their users were. These allegations, drawn from complaints filed in multiple state and federal courts beginning in 2023, paint a picture of companies that had access to research, data, and expert warnings but chose aggressive growth strategies over meaningful safeguards.
According to complaints filed in Massachusetts and New York, internal company data would have shown patterns consistent with problem gambling—users betting beyond their means, chasing losses with increasingly large and frequent wagers, and exhibiting behavior that addiction researchers describe as classic warning signs. The lawsuits allege that these companies tracked user behavior with sophisticated analytics, monitoring not just what people bet but how often, at what times, and in what emotional patterns. Plaintiffs claim that this data would have made problem gambling visible to the companies long before the users themselves recognized they had a problem.
The complaints also point to the broader industry knowledge. The U.K. Gambling Commission published extensive research on gambling-related harm beginning in 2016, documenting the specific risks of mobile and online gambling platforms. Studies from Australia, which legalized online sports betting earlier than most U.S. states, were published throughout the late 2010s showing elevated addiction rates connected to mobile betting apps. The lawsuits allege that major U.S. sports betting companies were aware of this international research, as several of them had corporate relationships with or ownership stakes held by international gambling companies that operated in those markets.
Court filings also reference the marketing strategies that plaintiffs allege were designed to target vulnerable users. Complaints describe promotional offers structured to encourage rapid reengagement after losses—such as bonus bets issued immediately after a losing streak, or risk-free bet promotions that required users to place an initial wager before receiving the promotional benefit. The lawsuits allege these practices were designed to exploit the psychology of loss-chasing, a core feature of gambling disorder.
Congressional testimony from a 2022 hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection included statements from former employees of major sports betting companies who described internal discussions about responsible gambling features being deprioritized in favor of user acquisition and engagement metrics. While this testimony is part of the public record, the lawsuits allege that internal company documents will show that warnings from responsible gambling staff were overruled by executives focused on growth targets and market share.
Complaints filed in New Jersey and Illinois allege that the companies deployed targeted advertising to users who had previously self-excluded or set deposit limits, allegedly using data matching and digital advertising tools to reach individuals who had taken steps to control their gambling. These allegations, if proven, would suggest not merely a failure to protect vulnerable users but active efforts to reengage them.
The lawsuits also point to the timing of feature rollouts. According to complaints, in-game or live betting features—which allow users to place bets on individual moments during a game and which research identifies as particularly high-risk for addiction—were introduced and heavily promoted even as responsible gambling organizations were raising alarms about their dangers. A 2021 report from the National Council on Problem Gambling specifically identified live betting as a feature of concern, yet according to the litigation, all three major platforms expanded these offerings in 2021 and 2022.
What The Lawsuits Say About Concealment
Beyond what the companies knew, the lawsuits allege active efforts to minimize public awareness of gambling addiction risks and to shape the regulatory environment in ways that limited safety requirements.
According to complaints filed in multiple jurisdictions, the major sports betting platforms funded research and advocacy organizations that presented mobile sports betting as a low-risk recreational activity, allegedly without fully disclosing the extent of industry funding. The lawsuits claim that this created a distorted public understanding of the risks, particularly as states were debating legalization. These allegations remain to be proven in court, but the complaints cite specific organizations and funding relationships that plaintiffs argue created conflicts of interest in the public health information available to legislators and the public.
The litigation also alleges that the companies lobbied state legislatures to adopt weak responsible gambling requirements. Court filings point to testimony and records from state legislative proceedings in which industry representatives allegedly argued against mandatory cooling-off periods, against limits on in-game betting, and against requirements for prominent display of gambling addiction resources. Plaintiffs claim that the companies used their political influence to ensure that regulations would not significantly restrict the features that drove user engagement, even when those features were identified by researchers as high-risk.
Several complaints allege that the platforms designed their responsible gambling tools to be minimally effective. According to the lawsuits, deposit limits were easy to increase but difficult to decrease, self-exclusion processes were buried in account settings and required multiple steps, and timeout features were accompanied by promotional offers designed to discourage their use. The complaints allege that this was not accidental poor design but a deliberate choice to appear to offer safety tools while ensuring those tools would not significantly reduce revenue.
Plaintiffs also allege that when problem gambling did surface in user accounts, the companies failed to intervene even when their data would have made the problem apparent. The lawsuits claim that internal systems flagged high-risk behavior but that these flags rarely resulted in outreach, intervention, or account restrictions. Instead, according to the complaints, high-spending users were sometimes offered VIP perks and personalized promotions, allegedly rewarding the very behavior that indicated a developing addiction.
Why Your Doctor May Not Have Told You
Most primary care physicians receive little to no training in gambling disorder. Medical school curricula focus on substance use disorders, and while gambling disorder is classified alongside substance addictions in the DSM-5, it remains poorly understood in general medical practice. A 2020 survey published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that fewer than fifteen percent of primary care physicians felt confident screening for or discussing gambling problems with patients.
The lawsuits allege that this knowledge gap was not coincidental but was partly the result of how gambling companies and their industry groups shaped public health messaging. According to court filings, the major betting platforms presented themselves as technology companies or entertainment companies rather than gambling operators, allegedly to distance their products from the stigma and regulatory scrutiny associated with traditional gambling. This framing, plaintiffs claim, contributed to a public health environment in which sports betting was not taken seriously as a health risk.
Additionally, the speed of legalization outpaced public health preparedness. Between 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition on sports betting, and 2023, more than thirty states legalized mobile sports betting. Public health departments, addiction treatment providers, and medical professionals had little time to develop expertise or screening protocols. The lawsuits allege that the betting companies pushed for rapid legalization state by state, knowing that this pace would prevent the development of robust public health infrastructure.
There is also the issue of how gambling disorder presents clinically. Unlike substance use disorders, there are no physical signs. No odor, no track marks, no toxicology tests. People with gambling disorder often hide their behavior behind lies about finances and activities. By the time the consequences become visible to others—through financial crisis or relationship breakdown—the disorder is typically severe. The lawsuits allege that the companies understood this invisibility and used it to their advantage, designing their platforms to operate in private on personal devices where problem gambling could develop undetected.
Who Is Affected
If you used a mobile sports betting app and found that your gambling escalated in ways you did not anticipate or control, you are not alone. The pattern typically looks like this: You started with small bets, maybe during football season or a major tournament. The app offered promotions—risk-free bets, deposit matches, bonus credits. You won sometimes, which felt exciting and made you believe you had skill or insight. But over time, the losses outweighed the wins, and you found yourself betting more frequently and in larger amounts to try to recover what you lost.
You may have started betting on sports you knew nothing about, simply because games were available and you wanted action. You may have found yourself irritable or anxious when you could not bet, or when you tried to stop. You probably lied to family members or friends about how much you were betting or losing. You may have borrowed money, dipped into savings meant for other purposes, or delayed paying bills to fund your betting account.
The financial losses may have reached tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. You may have lost your job, your home, or your marriage. You may have experienced severe depression or had thoughts of suicide. These are not uncommon outcomes for people with gambling disorder, and they are especially common among those who developed the disorder using mobile betting apps.
The lawsuits generally involve individuals who used DraftKings, FanDuel, or BetMGM apps, though some complaints include other platforms. Many plaintiffs are men between the ages of twenty-one and forty, though women are affected as well. Some had no prior history of gambling problems; others had gambled recreationally before mobile apps became available but found that the apps triggered something different and more compulsive. Some have co-occurring mental health conditions; others had no diagnosed conditions before developing gambling disorder.
If you recognize yourself in this description, what happened to you was not a personal failing. The lawsuits allege that these platforms were designed using psychological research to maximize engagement in ways that could trigger and sustain addictive behavior. You were not weak or undisciplined. You were using a product that, according to the litigation, was engineered to be difficult to stop using.
Where Things Stand
As of late 2024, dozens of lawsuits have been filed against DraftKings, FanDuel, and BetMGM in state and federal courts across the country. These cases are in various stages of litigation. Some have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Others are proceeding individually in state courts.
The legal theories vary but generally fall into several categories. Some complaints allege negligence, claiming the companies failed to implement adequate safeguards despite knowing the risks. Others allege fraud or consumer protection violations, claiming the companies misrepresented the risks of their products or failed to disclose material information. Some complaints bring claims under state consumer protection statutes, which vary by jurisdiction but often prohibit unfair or deceptive business practices.
No cases have yet resulted in published settlements or trial verdicts as of this writing, which means the allegations remain unproven in court. However, discovery is underway in some cases, which means that internal company documents are beginning to be produced and reviewed. As discovery progresses, more information about what the companies knew and when they knew it is likely to become part of the public record.
State attorneys general have also begun investigating the practices of mobile sports betting companies. In 2023, several states issued subpoenas seeking information about marketing practices, responsible gambling tools, and data analytics used to track user behavior. While these investigations are separate from the civil lawsuits, they may produce findings and documents that inform the litigation.
The timeline for resolution of these cases is uncertain. Complex litigation involving multiple defendants and technical questions about product design and causation can take years to reach trial or settlement. However, the volume of cases being filed and the public attention to gambling disorder in connection with mobile betting apps suggest that this litigation will be active for the foreseeable future.
Individuals who believe they were harmed by mobile sports betting apps and who meet the criteria described above may have legal options, though the viability of any individual claim depends on specific facts and the laws of the relevant jurisdiction. Statutes of limitations vary by state and by the type of claim, and in some cases the clock may start running from the date of injury or from the date the person discovered or should have discovered the connection between their injury and the product.
What happened to you was not bad luck or bad character. The lawsuits moving through courts right now allege that it was the result of documented design choices made by companies that had research, data, and warnings but chose profit over safety. You placed bets, but according to the litigation, the real gamble was made by executives who wagered that they could build addictive products faster than regulators and public health systems could respond. You lost money and time and relationships, but the allegations in these court filings suggest that the companies knew those losses were likely and built their business models around them anyway. What you are living with now—the financial wreckage, the broken trust, the weight of a disorder that many people still do not understand—was not inevitable. It was, the lawsuits allege, a choice. And the legal system is now being asked to determine whether that choice should come with consequences.